2202:
certain other actions included in the general staff permission). I agree that it's confusing for a single account to be able to take the same actions under two separate and very different types of permission. But remember, Erik's staff permission gave him access to revert edits on a MediaWiki page; he did not rely on enwiki permissions in any way to do that. He can do that on every
Wikimedia project because of his staff permissions. His messages make it pretty clear he was acting as someone using WMF staff permissions, not as an enwiki administrator. So, aside from separating the staff permissions by having two different accounts (which I agree the Arbitration Committee can and probably should encourage), there's no actual complaint about the use of enwiki administrator tools. The complaint is about the use of staff permissions. I would hope that Arbcom is not seriously considering an enwiki desysop because of the revert of an edit that even the originator admits was made in error. If you're going to go after sysop permissions that were given under very different circumstances, more than 10 years ago, when the community was radically different, then you're further ahead to advocate for review of *all* administrator permissions on a regular basis. There is nothing in the original announcement of Eloquence being granted adminship that suggested even slightly that it was a temporary granting of permission: it was full-on adminship, whether or not he suggested temporary permissions - which weren't usually granted anyway on this project, ever. (Go ahead - find a single example of someone ever being granted adminship on a temporary basis on enwiki. I've looked and never found one.)
747:
some of my notes (some of which cover similar points to the ones you raised). I do also want to ask direct questions of some of those who took actions, but am holding off on that until it is clear what the most relevant questions would be (also, some of the questions might get answered as the evidence is presented). Some of these notes I am about to put up would also be more relevant to the workshop page, so I may copy some of them over there (that is the best place to discuss principles, for example). I also have a rudimentary timeline developed, so it is clear what happened when (with diffs). If I copy that over as well, it would be simple for that to be added to as needed so the core facts are agreed on. About the statement from me that you quote above, as far as I can tell it has been included in the preamble to the evidence and workshop pages. Not terribly visible, but it is there. The main reason for that scope statement was to (in the absence of good reasons given) exclude observations regarding the rollout of other features, which could lead quite quickly to a very sprawling case.
565:
on any particular issue (plus how consensus is generated in an environment like en-Knowledge (XXG)). It will be difficult for ArbCom to address this directly. At most we can issue guidance, but any impetus for improved dialogue will have to come from community and WMF processes. I'm assuming that the RfC you point to at the COI policy talk page is intended to end with a result to communicate to someone - who would it be communicated to? And having now read the discussion so far over there, I see that the proposal there is to have an RfC 'to determine alternative disclosure policies ' and that some are saying that this was encouraged by the
Foundation. My advice would be to proceed with an RfC as normal, providing agreement can be reached on what should be asked, and at what level to publicise it at. The key is to make the existence of the RfC known to those it will affect so they can participate in the discussion if they wish to do so. Several years ago I started the page
2386:(including to the meta RfC in 2007) while reading up on this, but it is entirely possible that much of the history is undocumented or poorly documented. One thing that could be useful is trying to document things much better than at they are at present. I've included a principle on desysoppings in the draft principles on the workshop - that is probably better discussed there. Thanks for the 'History of WP:CONEXCEPT', I haven't yet come up with a finding on the history here, but if one was proposed at the workshop it may be possible to use it. Similarly, a principle explaining serverside changes and wiki configurations would be useful, but I'm reaching the limits of my technical knowledge here. The links to the logs and quotes from #wikimedia-dev IRC channel are particularly useful. Would you know of a particularly experienced volunteer developer willing to comment at the workshop in this case? (I think some commenting are volunteer developers, but am not sure about that.)
2471:
consolidated account for both work and non-work purposes. We’ve known for some time that this could create confusion, and have been gradually moving toward a “two accounts” system. Based on community input, we're now finalizing that process. Here’s the important bit: All employees maintaining a “consolidated” account will need to separate work and non-work editing into separate accounts, and all employees must have a work account that clearly identifies their affiliation with the WMF, using the “(WMF)” suffix (or, in certain circumstances, the “-WMF” suffix). There will be a period of transition as we complete account renames and migrations for this, but our target is to be complete by 9/15. As of that date, work-related edits will be made from specifically designated (WMF) accounts, and there will be no more comingled accounts. Note that this policy applies to production wikis only, and does not impact things such as
Phabricator, Bugzilla, or private wikis.
2392:, what you have presented here and at the request stage goes far beyond the scope of this case. It is not ArbCom's role to respond to what you are saying here. What you are saying would be better addressed to the Multimedia Team or to those discussing this at mediawiki.org. Having said that, one of the issues I noticed here seems to be the way discussions gravitate to other Wikimedia sites. The notices left by Fabrice Florin linked to the Media Viewer talk page on en-WP, to the discussion page at mediawiki.org, and to a survey. What was remarkable was how little discussion (apart from the RfC) there seems to have been about Media Viewer on the English Knowledge (XXG). Most of the discussion prior to launch seems to have gravitated to other sites. Unless I'm mistaken, the RfC was the place where Media Viewer was discussed the most on the English Knowledge (XXG) - was there another place on the English Knowledge (XXG) where it was discussed extensively that I'm missing?
965:
user's opt-out of a js/css feature complex. This extension is provided by the multimedia engineering team at the
Wikimedia Foundation, not the core-engineering team or the volunteer. The multimedia engineering team developed this feature to improve user readability/interactions and so it did and they implemented an opt-out feature as they know not everyone will like it. We have an opt-in feature with an opt-out feature built in. We've opted-in because of no opposition when it was opt-in, but the minute it becomes opt-out, all hells breaks loose. Why? Because the community just like picking fights with no real outcome or reason to. In the time it has taken us to decide on an RfC and finish an ArbCom case will be what, around 2 months? When it takes 5 seconds to press opt-out. The community needs to learn, the process-route is not always the simple route. Press opt-out instead of arguing. It works.
2333:, while agreeing with parts of what you say (though not necessarily your conclusions), your first section is more suited to the workshop than the evidence page. On a point of order, the admin bit in question is a local right. The global staff rights Erik/Eloquence has includes 'editinterface'. Both rights allow editing of the MediaWiki namespace. The core question appears to be this distinction between local and global rights and what standards staff have to keep to (I believe there are internal WMF policies on this), similar to the standards Stewards are expected to maintain. The general rule of thumb seems to be for global rights holders to not interfere where local processes exist to deal with something. Whether that does or should apply to WMF staff is not yet fully clear. There is a current RfC on meta on a policy in relation to the global rights for the 'editinterface' permission (see
1499:
who files a hack to disable it, then to block anyone who re-uploads the images with a different name, etc... We must keep power well dispersed because power over how a site like this is displayed is an asset with substantial monetary and propaganda value, and the more we concentrate it the more likely it is to be stolen. We've already heard of the incident of the French admin being forced to delete a page after a session with his country's spy agency, but being defeated by
Knowledge (XXG) process. If ISIS threatens some random editors over Muhammad images they will get nothing but abuse and CC-licensed Koran burning videos for their trouble. But if there's one WMF employee in charge of that decision, we will never even know the decision to ban them was the result of them sending an image of somebody's spouse in cross-hairs. Really, democracy correlates with freedom. Honest.
1302:
evidence phase to at least 3 weeks, you will not even come close to getting this information. What you implied was going to be an extremely narrowly focused case is actually an enormous case ranging through a very large number of topic areas - and Arbcom has no ability to control or manage most of those areas. Almost none of the points mentioned in this shopping list are within the realm of control of Arbcom, and some of them are so far away from your control that I'm almost wondering if this list is "stuff I'd like to know because I'm curious". ("Does the WMF have a documented history of changes made to the Media Viewer extension?" - what do you mean? The newsletters? The announcements? The technical data? The
Mediawiki page? The changelogs? Media Viewer is constantly being changed, and has been for months, and those changes are all documented in some manner or other.)
1024:, I was convinced that such a statement was no more than a tautology. If that were not the case, and considering the fact that both editors involved acknowledged that they did wrong, the Arbcom members would never have accepted this case. It should be obvious by now (except maybe for you) that a serious conflict now exists between the community of editors and the MV team (not to say WMF). How do we solve the present problem, how to we learn from the mistakes made by both parts and how should we avoid similar conflicts in the future are the evident concerns for Arbcom. That I understood from the very beginning, despite my poor English and lack of verbosity. --
1045:, Arbcom took this case to shut down the discussion on their case request page. It will take them several months, but at the end of the day, there will be no change from the status quo ante except maybe Eloquence will be told to be nicer and Peteforsyth will be told to stay away from the common.js and common.css pages. Maybe. There will be no other useful result, because there is nothing else within Arbcom's scope. This case wasn't taken to produce a result, it was taken to quiet people down. It is quite possible that there is some quixotic belief amongst some arbitrators that something will actually come of it, but they're wildly mistaken.
1978:
participation and increased anxiety among voters. That's so unnecessary ... we have plenty of good closers, they just need to step up early so they can get up to speed and increase voter confidence, and be willing to respond to any concerns people have about their track record as closers, and step down if necessary to avoid drama. Picking the closers ahead of time is even more important if some of the stakeholders and voters are
Foundation people and volunteer coders, since some of those guys have a lot of skepticism that our discussion processes are going to adequately deal with their concerns. - Dank (
764:(how do you identify these - by following Bugzilla or wikitech-l?). How to identify accounts with WMF staff permissions would be useful. Looking on meta for global rights (is that similar to stewards?) was mentioned. Is there a difference between global rights and WMF staff permissions? Outdated practices, policies and user rights sounds like something better discussed on the workshop page in the context of principles. And a close-up look at the behaviour of those who participated in the RfC would be admissible. On the subject of the advertising of the RfC, I pointed Dank above to the page
526:
respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
1958:
interface. Out of thousands of RfCs, the
Foundation has objected strongly to the way a handful of them turned out. How do those few exceptions constitute support for some grand new statement in either direction, that the community (or the Foundation) can't be trusted and the Foundation (or the community) is now "The Decider"? Is either side contemplating a future of endless divisiveness over proposed changes? I have to admit I haven't been following, but I thought there were just a few new features proposed ... why not focus on the actual areas where conflicts are anticipated?
1337:, I have responded to many of your questions and, as predicted, it was impossible to keep under the word limit. There is almost nothing in my evidence that is repeated elsewhere, and almost nothing that not a factual response to your questions. I've been dealing with power failures and storms all day, and will be traveling in the near future, so will have a hard time cutting it down; in fairness, since this is fresh evidence, I don't think it should be cut down. I hope you will accept the evidence as provided. I will try to get to the workshop if my power remains on.
795:. It resulted from the RfC and so is part of the broader defined focus, yes, but in the end resolving this is what matters. And resolving it is hindered by the fact that in these two edits so far no one has actually filed or even proposed the precise version we want, i.e. one which leaves Media Viewer off by default but makes it simple to turn it on. But reaching a 'right version' of this page well supported by community consensus is how we define victory here. Note that imposing sanctions, real or imagined, on either party is not useful toward achieving victory.
2448:. WMF have taken the position that a small subset of editors participating in the RfC is not representative of the community including readers, and that they have done surveys of the readers which found significant support for the MV. Yet here I see opinion-based discussions among the developers (an even smaller subset of the community) over product design, which is not based on any survey of readers, as far as I can tell. If they aren't properly surveying readers, then at the least they could survey the editors.
1248:, who is Rachel diCerbo (Director of Community Engagement (Product), Wikimedia Foundation). Clarification of the exact roles of various people here would be good (one of my colleagues has pointed me to the staff and contractors page on the WMF wiki, which was helpful). On the history of the common.js page, I've looked through that and have no idea how to identify who is a Mediawiki developer on that list. Anyway, I'll stop there for now and go back up to the section above and indicate what would be useful there.
989:
telling us how to decide on the
Muhammad images or something. Furthermore at least I don't feel like we know enough about the multimedia team, who they are, what they do, and who gives them their orders when it comes to decisions like this; I don't think I was picturing any middlemen between us and MediaWiki. Knowledge (XXG) is full, alas, of little private fiefdoms, and while nobody much likes that it is easier for us to tolerate when we know they won't be coming to invade other things we're interested in.
2304:, the draft findings of fact (to be published soon) includes some of these links about where Media Viewer and the RfC were publicised, as well as others I tracked down. Thanks for these. I didn't go looking for links outside the English Knowledge (XXG) (such as the Tech News release you mentioned). The Code of Conduct and the Wikimedia Gerrit links have not yet been used, but if someone proposes a finding or remedy based on them, that could be considered.
1661:
threaten or indeed carry out his threat in order to defend the project, and I don't see that as something that can practically change. So we're really dancing on the head of a pin here looking for just the right division of power, and I imagine that after all sides make their cases we might see boundaries we didn't before. I just want them to be good ones. I hope there are more interchanges like the one above that smooth down the rough edges.
1490:'s head over something that might plausibly be interpreted as defending the server from bad hacks. The fact is, we're dealing with top level people here who have all put in a lot to this project and I don't want any heads to roll here, not one. That's not what this is about. I know it may seem strange to ArbCom and watchers to suggest this ritual can go on without a blood sacrifice, but really, our faith is enough.
2172:. He said he needed to be an temporarily be an admin to move some pages. Presumably they've been moved by now, but his temporary admin status is still in effect despite not actually doing any admin work for this project for the last several years. This is really just a matter of housekeeping. Erik and a few others who moved on to positions at the WMF retain local permissions that they do not really use or even need.
192:
2357:(Erik Möller), thank you for the section titled 'Our original response to the RFC was insufficiently clear'. I will aim to incorporate that into one of the findings. Thank you also for the pointer to the Beta Features roll-out. The link you provide regarding Media Viewer being introduced as a beta feature seems to go to Commons - did you mean to point to somewhere on en-WP? While looking into this, I found
2345:, your links were most useful. Thank you for those. Of particular use were the links to the page on meta about user groups. It seems that page is outdated or incorrect. One of the draft findings and the associated remedy will be attempting to address this. The jurisdiction question (I'm aware you have strong views on this) is an important one. Hopefully this can be discussed in more detail at the workshop.
904:, though I would hazard a guess setting $ wgMediaViewerIsInBeta to true should be useful. Nonetheless ... whatever tools are available on wiki should be used on wiki to the best possible effect for the encyclopedia, i.e. if there were some problem getting the configuration setting the way we want, it is not inappropriate for us to change any file we have access to to get a working substitute.
43:
615:"When submitting evidence, please bear in mind that the locus of the dispute is the Media Viewer request for comments (RfC), and the actions that followed the RfC. If your evidence is outside this scope, please include supporting statements or background context to explain the relevance to the case. If an extension of evidence lengths is needed, please ask one of the drafting arbitrators."
2569:. We committed to move all staff to defined and marked "staff accounts" and to transfer any work-related user rights to those accounts by September 15th. As of today, I believe that all accounts with the exception of employees traveling or on vacation throughout the entire period have been migrated. The remaining accounts will be migrated as soon as the traveling employees return.
2316:, as part of my research into the case I came across a number of past instances of disagreements between WMF staff and volunteers. It may be useful to have these incidents documented somewhere. I will try and copy over the examples I found. Whether that will rise to the level of a background finding or not is less certain. Ditto for the other quotes from mailing lists.
2369:- having 'WMF' in the name is helpful when trying to spot who is who in such discussions. With regard to your point about the Media Viewer extension changing during the RfC, how is this taken into account when analysing the metrics collected by the WMF during surveys? Do you have periods where the product is stable to allow meaningful data to be collected?
946:
you're telling me that editing these two pages is a "privilege not a right", and I'm really scratching my head. Is editing the Main Page a privilege not a right? How about the settings for page notices? I was under the impression that, as a community, it was our task to use this software as we see fit to accomplish our end.
2351:, thank you for your point about items about Media Viewer in Bugzilla. I am not sure how this can be incorporated into a useful finding. From looking at past software roll-outs and changes, I do know that the WMF do step in and change things if something does go very wrong (the example I saw was related to image widths).
1926:
forwards. I'd like to request that Wnt either change his tally to include my response under enable, which is honestly probably where it belonged despite my putting it under disable (which was done because the immediate effect would be disable even if long term it would mean enable), or to exclude my response entirely.
2187:
established a practice that once adminship is given it remains, regardless of reason for asking. Secondly, if you're going to remove sysop status from people who don't use it much, it seems only fair to be more systematic than just doing it to WMF people... and that's a whole different can of worms to open.
2246:
there (I will add a similar note over there). The current plan is to have at least some parts of a draft proposed decision up on the workshop for public comments by Friday, and then make any changes needed and move to voting after the weekend. I'll post another update if things slip from that schedule.
2298:, the survey responses are a subject that is difficult to analyse, partly because the Media Viewer itself changes over time. Hopefully the WMF have some way to measure how the metrics are affected by the changes made to Media Viewer, but analysis of survey results is far outside the scope of this case.
2085:
Carrite, to be fair to Erik Möller, his Meta-Wiki page does it make it pretty clear that he is a paid editor; it says that "I am the current Deputy
Director and VP of Engineering and Product Development of the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco...", which to me seems a straightforward declaration,
1977:
Line up lots of closers, ahead of time. I know that's not the right way, or the usual way, to handle most RfCs, but unfortunately, we've had few people willing to close the tougher RfCs over the last few years, and less-than-stellar behavior from those who do close them, and our failures have lowered
1820:
Alan, you should just present your evidence at the case. As for noting my "snide" remarks, that is kind of funny considering your first comment to me here. Anyway, think what you want, place your evidence like anyone else, let Arb do their job. Obviously we aren't going to agree so it is pointless
1701:
This is why I've limited my argument to an admin (with extra powers) making an actionable threat within the community. The harm that is done to morale isn't undone so easily. The damage wasn't just to Pete, it was to the whole community. From my perspective, the community just wants to be an equal
1498:
want to let out. I don't want a situation where they feel they have the right to settle something like whether we display images of Muhammad, simply by writing up some "tool" that has the ability to hide them and decreeing that they have control over whether we use it, and threaten to desysop anyone
1165:
The history of the roll-out and reception of other Mediawiki features on en-Knowledge (XXG) has also been mentioned (e.g. Visual Editor, the Notifications system, Pending Changes, and the proposed Flow extension). Again, this would be outside the case scope, as the focus should be on the Media Viewer
763:
Following up with some specifics here: I personally would consider all the above to be admissible if presented with supporting statements that made clear how they related to this RfC and the actions taken around it. I would be particularly interested in what you have to say about volunteer developers
2574:
We are doing the final review of the accounts over the course of the next few days, but I'm pleased to say that the rename process is now substantially complete. While all WMF employees adjust to these new policies, if you notice a staff member posting from the wrong account, a gentle comment would
2063:
My questions: Where is Mr. Möller's conflict of interest declaration in accordance with site terms of use regulations? He doesn't even show a (WMF) behind his user name, nor was his administrator status ever approved by the community — and he now he seemingly thinks Conflict of Interest is for other
1992:
I get that voters in the VE and MV RfCs were reacting mostly to things they considered bugs, but even when all bugs have been dealt with, there's a chance that different people will want different interfaces. I don't want to take a position here, I just want to note that the coders have been working
1655:
You're right that I should have been less rhetorical; I don't think he should "lose his bit", and I have this sense that it's difficult to be a sysadmin yet not have something functionally equivalent to a bit, but I don't know, I don't have that kind of access. Where "might plausibly" is concerned,
1448:
Additional evidence about what on-wiki processes were used to publicise and communicate about Media Viewer to the en-Wikpedia community before and after launch would be appreciated (bearing in mind that the launch itself publicised the existence of the extension). Was a site notice ever used or not,
1090:
doesn't directly address the issues here, because the dispute at the core of the RFC is not about content or user behaviour; it's about political control of the project (whether some subset of the community or the WMF has control of common.js and common.css pages). And the DR policy cautions editors
949:
If the people making MediaWiki felt it was so integral to their software to have MediaViewer that nobody should ever be able to disable it, they'd not have made it an extension but part of their core software, and there wouldn't be any option there. But they didn't because they know people want the
858:
Well, the first step is to figure out what edit would accomplish the community's desires correctly. There are two entirely separate issues being raised here - one is whether the admin should have been expected to know that his edit wouldn't work quite right, and the other being whether we are going
746:
Thanks for this, Risker. We (mainly the drafters, but some other arbs as well) have been discussing some aspects of this over the past few days. I had intended to get some notes up here in public to help guide those presenting evidence, but hadn't quite got to that stage yet. I am going to copy over
619:
Well, that doesn't appear to have been included in the case pages. And that's terribly nonspecific, since I don't think that anything that was presented in the case request didn't more or less fall into the inclusions stated. In order to look at actions, one must look at policies and practices that
2507:
Really? None of that is necessary. "Gradually moving toward" is not so different from "there have always been competing views on this matter", that you have any basis for claiming "misrepresentation." Would you be interested in an interaction ban with the WMF? It seems you can't deal with them.
2245:
Thanks to all who submitted evidence. We are currently reviewing the submissions and may follow up with questions over the coming week. I've asked the clerks to extend the workshop closing date to the end of this coming weekend (3 August) so there is more time for proposals to be made and discussed
2038:
Thanks kindly Andrew, and thanks for offering to turn this into a proposal (on my talk page). There might be a shade difference in what you're saying, if "move on" means "don't make any rulings on what people did or should do" ... I didn't address those questions, they're above my pay grade. - Dank
1553:
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the foundation is about to start trying to control actual content. Aside from five or so office actions out of four million pages they don't really do that and my strong impression is that they don't want that to change. The core issues here as I see them are
964:
Yes; editing both those pages is a privilege as it provides control over some interesting aspects of the core. The Main Page is a page like any other, the interface messages a page like any other, the common js and css pages are a page like no other as they control settings for all users and make a
863:
edit to Common.js to make the Media Viewer disabled by default. We should try our best to very strictly separate these two issues so that they can be resolved more easily. However, to me the first issue doesn't seem like much of an issue - he made a good faith error, was reverted, was beaten half
564:
Thanks for your note. I'll draw it to the attention of the rest of the committee. My view is that at the core of this particular dispute is the issue of communication (both ways) between WMF staff and/or developers and the (somewhat changing) portion of the en-Knowledge (XXG) community that comment
1965:
Encourage everyone to say more than they would say in a typical RfC. People tend to talk in terms of solutions ... but if you prompt them for more, they'll tell you something about what they see as the problems, and that's the information we need to negotiate something that has a chance of working
1108:
Dank, the principles related to RfCs that get proposed in the final decision may end up addressing your concerns. Risker, let's wait until the case is actually concluded before predicting the value of any final decision. It is rather hard to work on a case when someone (you) who didn't want a case
988:
we decide to hand over this Crimea that the argument doesn't continue to spill out onto additional pages. We have to know what pages the community is tasked with controlling and what they're not, so we don't find somebody from the multimedia team claiming a general trump over us and coming in and
2402:
I've said enough here for now, and need to go look at the workshop proposals. Many thanks to all who submitted evidence in this case. Please do comment at the workshop on the proposals there. If anyone wants to respond to what I said above, it may be best to do so below, rather than inline above.
2201:
I've no problem with the idea of having staff permissions on a separate, clearly marked account, although I suspect it will probably lead to some new variations of staff/contractor permissions (for example, one for developers to have access to MediaWiki pages but not including the ability to take
1973:
Allow lots of time. Tough issues take multiple RfCs, because many voters will keep focusing on the question they're most interested in and won't be responsive to other questions until it's clear that they've either lost or won, from their perspective, on what concerns them most, and some time has
1957:
I may be missing something, but it seems there's a more straightforward approach available here than is being proposed by either side ... just start working on the next few difficult RfCs (MV again, VirtualEditor, Flow, whatever else is in the pipeline) that may or may not change the default user
1925:
The RFC was a complex RFC, and I don't particularly like that in Wnt's evidence my response on it was considered a disable and not an enable. While I was listed under the disable section, I actually suggested that we disable it for current users and enable it for all newly registered users going
1801:
Yes. I read it and you have taken it out of context. You decidedly miss the "If". And you have ignored: "Erik and I have known each other for several years, and while I think it's safe to say we have an abiding mutual respect, it's not unusual for our communications to get a bit heated; a bit of
1738:
Erik knew Pete. Threatening to desysop him was a good faith act? Then why did he later apologize? No one is even arguing that it wasn't a bad faith act and mistake, except you. Not all WMF employees are the problem. I think highly of Maggie, for example. That doesn't change the fact that many
1675:
I agree we are really dancing on the head of a pin, and I respect your knowledge around the technical pieces here. I think this case is poor, because actually there should be two. 1) around the whole Media Viewer RFC and 2) To examine how a Steward thinks it's correct to threaten to use emergency
1317:
The evidence limits can be extended, but I would need to see an initial presentation of evidence first, followed by a request for an extension. As you say Media Viewer has been constantly changed for months, there is no point getting into the survey numbers or the exact details of the changes, so
534:
Arbcom: Thanks for stepping up and getting this started. These conflicts with lopsided RfCs on one side and Foundation staff on the other side are happening often enough that we clearly need some combination of effective mediation and cluesticks, and that's clearly in your remit. When I'm closing
525:
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to
2186:
I have to say I find it hard to get worried :-) This was 2003, after all! People asking for adminship for a specific reason is not unusual (I asked for adminship in 2005 because I wanted to correct main-page errors...); saying "temporary" is unusual but, well, 2003! Since then we've more or less
2104:
I've already gone on record with my strong bellief that staff accounts should always be marked as such, especially when invoking their WMF-derived authority. I also don't believe that staff who have local admin or crat permissions (Erik isn't the only one) and yet only use their permissions for
1988:
Serious attempts were made to get community feedback on MV all along. For whatever reason, the feedback didn't work ... the Foundation representatives seemed to have been genuinely surprised at the results of the RfC ... so it's time to try a process that the community is more familiar with, one
1301:
Carcharoth, answering those questions will take in the range of 150-250 words per question, and the vast majority of them are factual questions. It will also take a LOT of hours to answer those questions. Unless you are willing to (a) extend the word limit for those responding AND (b) extend the
945:
Well, here we're getting into the core ideology, so I think this is a very productive conversation. The problem is that as I see it, this is the English Knowledge (XXG). The community, as a whole, is the only reason why there's anything here - any images, any text, any Common.js settings. Now
2470:
Noting that evidence period has closed, I hope that the Committee will take notice of the following: Recent events have raised the question of WMF account naming. Historically, some WMF employees have used a separate account for “work” and “non-work” purposes. Still others have used a single
1524:
Well, the fence is well demarcated. This case is about lines of code showing things in different format, and not about publishing or not publishing editorial content; the later, the WMF does not involve itself - except in legal cases, per DMCA, etc -- the former, the technical coding, it does.
839:
It is not a symptom of anything. That issue is a result of an administrator adding code to a global javascript page without knowing what it does and as a result, broke a feature of the whole wiki and forced a choice on the community. How the Foundation acted with that edit is beyond reasonable.
1493:
The sum of my fears here is that sysadmins or other devs might be getting the impression that they have a supervote over the community to decide what Knowledge (XXG) looks like. That is a minor issue with the Media Viewer, but it is very close to a Pandora's box of explosive issues that we do
1660:
a sysadmin responsibility. If something about that edit were actually putting too much burden on the servers and degrading performance or corrupting the database, or if it somehow violated the TOS (for example, if it allowed a third-party site access to personal information) a sysadmin could
2385:
resulting from that RfC. That was meant to cover the actions taken relating to the MediaWiki:common.js page. I've incorporated your RfC wording into one of the draft principles. The 'WMF Staff rights' section is entirely without links, which isn't that useful. I've gathered a number of links
2021:
as many people as possible from all sides. There is a great potential for going down rabbit-holes here and producing a ruling that does more harm than good in terms of the effect on future community relations, regardless of what it says about mediaviewer. Sometimes the simplest solutions are
1502:
The ideal outcome here should be a clearer assertion of community control over en.wp, but not heads rolling (or failing to roll due to WMF intervention, for that matter). We are only doing the devs a favor by demanding that their free software, like any other, actually be desirable in its
2290:
Adding a couple of notes here on the evidence submissions. These are my views alone, not those of the committee as a whole. The notes are partly to help explain what was useful and may be used in the proposed decision and what will likely not be used (or should be put forward elsewhere).
979:
We're not going to avoid "process" if we don't know who has the right to do what and how disagreements are settled. You're laying claim to two pages on behalf of a multimedia engineering team. I assume they're also claiming some (all?) of the $ wg variables. Now I should admit I see
1969:
Instead of letting a few people determine what everyone is going to vote on, allow votes on whatever questions gain traction, either through a pre-RfC to decide the questions, or at the end of an RfC, when the closer(s) can lead a short discussion among the voters to set up the next
1069:
It's no use to try guessing what Arbcom will do. After all, they are just around the corner and we will know soon enough. But I will be very surprised if the only outcome will be an admoestation to Eloquence and Pete. That won't certainly add to the reputation of the committee. --
2059:
Erik Möller, who is a financially-interested party in seeing the "success" of this and other WMF software initiatives, has chutzpah: "Indeed, the main principle on which we cannot compromise is that WMF maintains final authority over software deployment and configuration."
1453:
Later in the week, I'll be coming back to this page to review the evidence submitted. I also hope to have some drafts up over on the workshop and to comment on some of the proposals over there, as well as ask some specific questions to some of the case parties and others.
1802:
strong language from him toward me is totally normal, and not something that worries me. Finally, I strongly adhere to the belief that admin tools are "no big deal," and if I lost them for any reason for a short time, I don't really see what would harm would result. So
1723:
Disagree. It appears you have not even considered, and refuse to consider, that Eloquence was acting in good faith (or what if he was mistaken). Indeed, it seems you think the WMF incapable of good faith. Such a damaging assumption, you have fixed for this Project.
1318:
forget about that. The core area where evidence is needed is conduct during the RfC and afterwards (by editors, admins, developers and WMF staff). The rest is mainly getting answers to factual questions. We should be able to do that in the timescale given.
2310:, your thoughts on RfCs are interesting. It is probably best to address them in the workshop as I see you have since done. Even if nothing concrete comes out of the case, you may want to work with others on possible improvements to the RfC process.
1444:
about where the RfC was advertised. It would be simplest to ask Pine where they advertised it, and where the RfC bot would have advertised it. Dates for when the centralised discussion notice was added and removed would add precision to the
930:
is a privilege not a right. If they community wishes to abuse such editing privileges, as we do with block users - it can be revoked until a time when communities accept technical changes need to be technical changes not a javascript hack.
1410:
Thanks to those who have submitted evidence so far. This section is to provide an update and some additional links that may be useful, some links relating directly to the dispute, others more tangential to provide background information.
119:
1477:
harping on that much about complete incompetence because of one mistake, when what I know really bugs him is that it was intended as an end run around the sysadmins' control of the configuration settings. And I definitely don't like
1760:
Pete was not offended because they knew each other. As for how many are arguing, that's not a logical argument, nor is it responsive. As for the apology, that does not show the original statement/actions were not in good faith.
2119:. As I've mentioned there are other cases like this and I am hopeful somehting will come either form this case or form the community to clean a little house and get rid of local permissions for staff that don't need or use them.
1239:
for a flavour of the discussions and changes that occurred before the June-July RfC. Focusing on the RfC itself, one thing I noticed on looking through the discussions was the presence of three other 'WMF' accounts as well as
114:
1153:
Underlying issues are of communication (both ways) between segments of the en-Knowledge (XXG) community and the WMF regarding various features provided by WMF developers (including the design, implementation and feedback
108:
1351:
Thanks, Risker. There is no need to cut down what you have submitted. I'll let the clerks know that and I will also ask the clerks to extend the workshop page to the weekend, as there is a fair amount to discuss.
2114:
We can't really make the first thing happen, all we can do is ask the foundation to change their policy. We can do the second one. In Erik's case he asked for temporary admin permisssions to do a single task in
1149:
The locus of the dispute was a request for comments (RfC) held on en-Knowledge (XXG) on the Media Viewer extension coded and rolled out by a team of Mediawiki developers and managers at the Wikimedia Foundation
2339:). The links you found in the second section were useful, but I'm unwilling to use material from so long ago. You may want to work with Ariconte (see above) to list some of these historical examples somewhere.
1777:
ArbCom should admonish staff who misuse staff accounts, even if it carries no actionable consequence. WMF should be accountable to Wikimedia communities; a clear statement when a line is crossed is helpful in
2064:
people, I wonder? Which of the hundreds of WMF employees have the uncompromisable "right" to unilaterally determine software deployment and configuration on En-WP? Where did this so-called "right" come from?
1578:. Not, it wasn't plausible. The site wide ability of admins to edit bits of .js /css etc. might not be desirable - but that's not the conversation here. Eloquence stepped right over the line with his threats.
1231:. The release plan in particular links to 10 announcements made on en-Knowledge (XXG). I presume there was some sitewide notice as well (how would this be confirmed?). Also useful for background context is
103:
92:
413:
1627:
Thank you Alan - I've clearly gone word blind. I was convinced there was no statement it was a WMF action. I should learn to recheck my diffs. I fully retract that part, and have struck it as above.
2540:
What? It's a question in a forum for discussing remedy for behavior. There is little that is more relevant than that: evidence, other-evidence, evidentiary questions, conclusions from evidence. --
450:
282:
56:
1938:
There are likely other responses that are similar to mine in being more complex than a simple binary choice could give. I suggest that those looking over the evidence keep such things in mind.
86:
29:
2486:
I don't think "gradually moving toward" is the right phrase. One of the more famous recently created staff accounts, which surely drew some careful consideration before the name was chosen, is
922:
really. And yes, there is a problem with the community making javascript hacks to get around a technical decision made by the Wikimedia Foundation. In theory, allowing administrators to edit
215:
2265:
Per IAR and BLP policies, I've added 4 words which eliminate a probably unintended and anyway unrelated/irrelevant for the context, but severe misrepresentation of a third party, that is
2086:
in line with the site terms of use regulations (NB: but I'm not a lawyer!). An abbreviated version of that, with a link to the Meta-Wiki, is on his English Knowledge (XXG) page as well.
444:
772:
that there has been adequate participation has been a perennial issue. That might be usefully discussed on the workshop page in the context of evidence about how it was handled here.
2490:. It would be more accurate (and less self-serving of the WMF) to simply say something like, "there have always been competing views on this matter, but now we have made a decision."
1574:(note - elsewhere I have specifically said I don't want anyone losing a job - be careful with the implications of your rhetoric please). I'm also free to take issue with your absurd
81:
2217:
1932:
Included under Enable: "RfC: Knowledge (XXG):Media Viewer/June 2014 RfC was closed with 63 editors calling for it to be disabled by default versus 6 calling for it to be enabled."
1162:
The reception of Media Viewer on other WMF projects has been mentioned. This provides some context, but is ultimately outside the scope of an en-Knowledge (XXG) arbitration case.
408:
440:
236:
228:
1059:
Ack, I hope that's not true, I don't think anyone (especially not me) wants to see me winging it if I have to deal with these issues during or after future RfCs. - Dank (
2375:, thank-you for the pointer to Erik's secondary response to Pete at Pete's talk page. That diff hasn't been incorporated into the draft findings but could be if needed.
1554:
not about content but rather the software, the user rights of staff, and the division (or lack thereof) between staff member's personal accounts and official accounts.
1263:
You seem to have mysteriously forgotten "Is it legitimate for WMF staff members to threaten administrators with temporary desysops, and if so, when, where and how?"  —
583:
People have talked about a site notice for logged-in users, and mentioned advertising it widely. Your page is helpful, thanks. The RfC is intended as a response to the
1935:
Excluded: "RfC: Knowledge (XXG):Media Viewer/June 2014 RfC was closed with 63 editors calling for it to be disabled by default versus 5 calling for it to be enabled."
535:
future RfCs, I'll be looking to your rulings for guidance. I hope I'm wrong, but I see a real possibility of similar issues resurfacing in or after some future RfC on
1093:
emember that dispute resolution mechanisms are ultimately there to enable editors to collaboratively write an encyclopedia – not to win personal or political battles.
587:
that says that projects can adopt an alternative policy if it gains consensus, so I guess it would be addressed to whoever at the Foundation deals with that. - Dank (
382:
402:
247:
225:
70:
2151:
1921:
Please forgive me if this was the wrong spot to include something like this, I figured this talk page would be a safe spot to put it that it would get noticed.
1197:
If WMF staff members (using their global rights) carry out temporary desysops of administrators, do they pass them to a local ArbCom (if it exists) for review?
435:
373:
292:
220:
63:
2154:(back when it was an almost hilariously lightweight process, as you can see on the link). I'm not sure where the 2006 part or the temporary request comes in.
2128:
Both of these things shoul make it more clear when one is representing themselves a s amember of the community and when they are representing the foundation.
2067:
It is time for ArbCom to make this much clear to Mr. Möller and those who think like him in San Francisco, quoting Lila Tretikov at the July Metrics meeting:
1209:
Should the code proposed for use have been discussed further and warning given ahead of time as was done with the earlier situation involving Visual Editor?
1206:
Was the close properly prepared and executed, and should the closure of such RfCs be performed by experienced administrators rather than non-administrators?
554:), mostly because I'm counting on this case to handle questions involving the Foundation and RfCs that would have been above my paygrade to tackle. - Dank (
378:
25:
1503:
marketplace. We are only doing them a favor by keeping contentious political decisions out of their hands. We mean them no ill will, and we hope that
388:
368:
251:
1434:(131 as of today, though the main conclusion I came to from looking through that category is that it is not very useful and not that well maintained).
1832:
1791:
1750:
1713:
393:
306:
287:
509:
1993:
hard to get the old and new interfaces to work together, so maybe everyone will get what they want, or something close to it, in the end. - Dank (
427:
318:
2150:
No objection to the general principle of seperating accounts, but note that in this specific case Erik (as "Eloquence") has had admin permissions
351:
277:
206:
21:
1806:
I feel Erik's threat was insignificant, and doesn't demand any kind of strong reaction." As for your snide side comments, they are noted. --
2105:
their work with the foundation as opposed to regular admin work to keep the community functioning should not retain those local permissions.
765:
566:
2584:
2549:
2535:
2517:
2502:
2480:
2457:
2429:
2412:
2280:
2255:
2224:
2211:
2196:
2181:
2163:
2137:
2095:
2079:
2044:
2033:
1998:
1983:
1947:
1909:
1851:
1837:
1815:
1796:
1770:
1755:
1733:
1718:
1696:
1670:
1643:
1622:
1606:
1563:
1548:
1534:
1516:
1463:
1397:
1383:
1361:
1346:
1327:
1311:
1293:
1281:
1257:
1118:
1103:
1079:
1064:
1054:
1033:
998:
974:
959:
940:
913:
891:
873:
849:
830:
804:
781:
756:
740:
592:
578:
559:
544:
343:
183:
731:
Okay, so that's the list I came up with in about 4 minutes. Which ones are you interested in and not interested in hearing about?
2420:
You're welcome. Thanks for your consideration, and especially the above comments - I hope you Arbs do such comments in all cases.
329:
272:
1587:
Unless otherwise stated, any edit to Wikimedia projects by myself is an act of a regular member of the community and administrator
636:
Balancing RFC consensus against factors that cannot be accommodated in the RFC format (e.g., user preferences, effects on readers)
264:
1901:
1504:
1020:
Because English is not my mother language I always try to be synthetic and precise in my statements. And when I wrote that the
1092:
314:
212:
1374:
I have contributed a bit of evidence regarding the technical implementation of Media Viewer, staff conduct, validity etc. :)
1236:
821:. Those are only symptons of a much bigger issue, which is the behaviour of WMF and its relationship with the community. --
324:
242:
17:
1194:
How do the communities on en-Knowledge (XXG) gather consensus on issues and communicate with the WMF and its developers?
620:
informed said actions. So what do you want to talk about, and what are you trying to exclude here? Possible examples:
550:
P.S. ... and sooner than I thought. I'm back in as a closer for the upcoming RfC on COI and paid editing (discussion at
502:
1702:
partner, but all too often it is made clear that we are just a necessary evil, merely tolerated as a means to an end.
1219:
Some aspects of this I've already been able to read up on and answer myself. The Mediawiki wiki pages here are useful:
897:
1290:
1212:
Is it acceptable for an administrator to add such code to the sitewide js without understanding what the code does?
363:
2545:
2526:" - I suggest you refrain from making threats during discussions, and keep debating the relevant issues instead.
2513:
2425:
1847:
1811:
1766:
1729:
1618:
1530:
1241:
2358:
1232:
467:
2580:
2476:
1961:
I don't know how much of this should go into a workshop proposal, but my unsolicited advice for these RfCs is:
172:
901:
202:
2361:
on one of the village pumps back in November that mentioned both Beta Features and Media Viewer. You mention
1022:
focus of this case is not the two-edit edit war between an administrator of en:WP and the WMF deputy director
1379:
984:
argument there because Common.js could be badly abused in unique ways; nonetheless we should make sure that
970:
936:
887:
845:
495:
2445:
1828:
1787:
1746:
1709:
2337:
1582:
Eloquence has already and always made it clear his threat to desysop was a member of the community - see
1449:
and how was the en-Knowledge (XXG) community alerted to ongoing changes to Media Viewer after the launch?
661:
655:
2498:
2192:
2159:
2029:
1905:
1544:
1287:
1203:
Was the RfC adequately advertised and planned? Was it a representative summary of the community's views?
1075:
1029:
826:
768:. How to get adequate participation on en-Knowledge (XXG) to gather consensus for various issues and to
2493:
While notification of the decision here is helpful, misrepresentation of the relevant history is not. -
551:
2541:
2509:
2421:
2408:
2342:
2251:
2177:
2133:
1843:
1807:
1762:
1725:
1614:
1559:
1526:
1459:
1393:
1357:
1323:
1253:
1114:
927:
777:
752:
574:
161:
2576:
2472:
1897:
1286:
Quite. This, to me (a powerless editor), seems to be one of the more important points of the case.
1109:
accepted, looks set to comment throughout in the same vein and to be so cynical about the outcome.
923:
818:
792:
569:. I'm not sure how widely the existence of that page is known, but the advice there may be useful.
167:
147:
136:
667:
2091:
1943:
1474:
1437:
1375:
1245:
1015:
966:
932:
883:
882:
edit to common.js. The change in question should be made in the configuration files not on wiki.
841:
584:
1244:(Product Manager, Wikimedia Foundation). In more recent discussions, these have been joined by
2531:
2487:
2453:
2362:
2075:
1822:
1781:
1740:
1703:
1479:
2494:
2389:
2207:
2188:
2155:
2025:
1540:
1431:
1342:
1307:
1099:
1071:
1050:
1042:
1025:
822:
736:
469:
2169:
1677:
1170:
Evidence that would be useful includes any that would help answer the following questions:
676:
2439:
2404:
2247:
2173:
2129:
1689:
1680:
action. To my mind (but apparently not to others) they are considerably different things.
1636:
1599:
1555:
1455:
1389:
1353:
1334:
1319:
1274:
1249:
1110:
773:
748:
570:
156:
2216:
Re: temporary adminship: how about (among others) the 2007 Timichal entries (948-950) on
1191:
How do the WMF Engineering teams communicate with the projects they provide features for?
1087:
536:
1425:
472:
2366:
2354:
2273:
2040:
1994:
1979:
1892:
1487:
1418:(these are the 'staff rights' sometimes referred to). The staff permissions are listed
1060:
588:
555:
540:
142:
131:
1989:
that's more likely to generate a lot of honest feedback, and that probably means RfCs.
639:
The general principles, policies and practices of managing RFCs that have broad effect
2313:
2301:
2277:
2221:
2087:
1939:
1666:
1512:
1215:
Does the WMF have a documented history of changes made to the Media Viewer extension?
1200:
How does the WMF handle complaints about the actions of those holding staff accounts?
994:
955:
909:
869:
800:
2527:
2449:
2395:
2348:
2330:
2071:
1419:
1228:
627:
The manner in which the RFC was conducted (including any relevant user behaviours)
471:
191:
1842:
Fine. I will note, however, there was nothing snide in my first comment to you.
642:
The creation and description of a specific code to modify the mediawiki.common.js
2378:
2372:
2203:
1338:
1303:
1095:
1046:
732:
2168:
2006 was me mis-remebering the year, my bad. The temporary bit is from his own
2381:, my original statement was that the locus of the dispute was the RfC and the
1683:
1650:
1630:
1593:
1483:
1264:
1428:(this helps get a handle on who is who at the WMF, plus official job titles).
2307:
2266:
1441:
1220:
1180:
What is the status of the common.js (and similar Mediawiki pages) and who
2295:
1662:
1571:
1508:
990:
951:
905:
865:
796:
55:
To request an amendment or clarification of an Arbitration decision, see
50:
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
1415:
791:
opinion is that the true focus of this case is a two-edit edit war at
681:
The actions and activities of specific users (by name or as a group):
675:
The application of the consensus policy, including the principle that
645:
The application of the specific code to modify the mediawiki.common.js
1224:
1473:
I am not liking the nasty tone of the evidence here. I didn't like
672:
The principle of least restriction in preventing harm to the project
1422:. Is there a policy anywhere governing use of those staff rights?
1086:
There is no RFC policy, and Arbcom can't create one by fiat. The
2334:
57:
Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
2365:
in your evidence - another name I saw coming up frequently was
2318:
Side-note: the correct spellings of the names you mention are C
2276:
and respective talk page, I'm not following this page. Thanks,
1656:
I'll admit it's a stretch, but avoiding sufficiently bad code
473:
37:
1539:
The tone was set by Eloquence. We are where he brought us.--
1416:
List of those with staff rights as listed on meta (around 43)
900:
or something else? I don't see precisely what is desired in
1505:
a clearer division of power will prevent any further discord
719:
Editors and administrators participating in the case request
611:: The following notice is to be included on the case pages:
2524:
Would you be interested in an interaction ban with the WMF?
648:
The general principles of modifying the mediawiki.common.js
1890:
Let's get back to presenting evidence lease guys. Thanks,
2446:
introduced a specific bug report and extended my comments
2218:
Knowledge (XXG):Database reports/Meta-Wiki rights changes
1177:
What is the history of having separate '(WMF)' accounts?
2566:
2270:
1612:
1583:
608:
483:
398:
356:
232:
69:
To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see
62:
To report a violation of an Arbitration decision, see
705:
Registered and unregistered users involved in the RFC
2272:
For more information and discussion please refer to
687:
RFC participants (one or more specific participants)
624:
The development, posting and advertising of the RFC
1570:You're free to not like my "calling for his head"
630:The assessment of consensus and closing of the RFC
1440:, there are additional links in the statement by
1432:en-Knowledge (XXG) category of WMF staff accounts
71:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks
64:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
1780:I'm sorry, but you are batting 0 for 2 here.
1611:Your second paragraph is factually incorrect.
864:to death with a wet fish, and we can move on.
1929:This would make that piece of evidence read:
503:
8:
2220:("Temp sysop for permission queue only")? --
651:Outdated practices, policies and user rights
1739:believe there is an institutional problem.
510:
496:
179:
817:of this case is the two-edit edit war at
2577:Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation
2473:Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation
2007:Endorse this suggestion entirely; let's
766:Knowledge (XXG):Publicising discussions
727:Global vs local user rights/permissions
567:Knowledge (XXG):Publicising discussions
182:
1804:if considered as an isolated incident,
1589:". So basically you're flat out wrong.
859:to have a problem getting through the
7:
2398:, thank-you (I think) for that link.
1775:Did you even read Pete's statement?
1174:What is the history of WP:CONEXCEPT?
283:Clarification and Amendment requests
2261:4 words errata corrige on Tech News
1388:Thank-you. That is a useful start.
896:Are you talking about something in
603:So what is the focus of this case?
36:
1426:List of WMF staff and contractors
1237:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Media Viewer
898:mw:Manual:Configuration settings
190:
41:
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Arbitration
2585:04:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
1:
2286:Notes on evidence submissions
902:mw:Extension:MultimediaViewer
1821:to ping pong comments here.
1676:global powers to desysop an
1233:Knowledge (XXG):Media Viewer
414:Conflict of interest reports
2550:16:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
2536:15:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
2518:18:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
2503:18:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
2481:17:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
2458:19:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
2225:10:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
2017:the discussion, and try to
1469:"A truce will set you free"
699:WMF Director reversing code
696:Administrator applying code
633:How binding an RFC close is
243:Search archived proceedings
184:Knowledge (XXG) Arbitration
2601:
2430:20:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
2413:19:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
1916:Not that this matters much
950:option, and we're opting.
288:Arbitrator motion requests
2575:be greatly appreciated.
2281:09:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
2256:23:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
2212:22:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
2197:21:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
2182:00:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
2164:21:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
2138:20:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
2096:17:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
2080:17:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
2045:09:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
2034:22:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
1999:20:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
1984:15:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
1948:04:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
1910:01:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
1852:00:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
1838:00:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
1816:00:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
1797:00:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
1771:00:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
1756:23:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
1734:23:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
1719:23:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
1697:22:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
1671:22:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
1644:21:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
1623:20:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
1607:19:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
1564:19:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
1549:18:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
1535:18:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
1517:17:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
1464:23:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
1398:16:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
1384:15:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
1362:22:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
1347:00:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
1328:16:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
1312:14:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
1294:19:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
1282:13:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
1258:10:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
1242:User:Fabrice Florin (WMF)
1119:23:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
1104:22:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
1088:dispute resolution policy
1080:23:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
1065:22:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
1055:22:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
1034:21:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
999:20:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
975:20:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
960:20:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
941:19:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
914:19:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
892:19:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
874:19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
850:19:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
831:19:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
805:18:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
782:11:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
757:09:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
741:03:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
593:19:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
579:18:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
560:15:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
545:13:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
2055:Brass tacks or something
813:I wouldn't say that the
539:, for instance. - Dank (
2565:This is a follow-up to
2069:You work for the users.
537:Pending Changes Level 2
523:Behaviour on this page:
2274:m:Tech/News#contribute
920:$ wgDefaultUserOptions
666:The principles behind
654:The principles behind
617:
585:terms of use provision
1406:Case update and notes
724:WMF staff permissions
693:Developer/code writer
613:
484:Track related changes
344:Arbitration Committee
2522:RE Alanscottwalker "
1158:Outside case scope:
928:MediaWiki:common.css
714:Volunteer developers
677:consensus can change
293:Enforcement requests
221:Guide to arbitration
153:Drafting arbitrators
2322:ry Bass and Sue Gar
924:MediaWiki:common.js
918:I am talking about
819:MediaWiki:Common.js
793:MediaWiki:Common.js
702:Other participants
2269:and its editor(s).
1246:User:Rdicerb (WMF)
1221:About Media Viewer
1184:edit them and who
315:Contentious topics
213:Arbitration policy
2488:User:LilaTretikov
2359:this announcement
2327:
1953:Proposed proposal
1922:
1835:
1794:
1753:
1716:
1695:
1642:
1605:
1576:"might plausibly"
1141:Evidence guidance
520:
519:
487:
455:
325:General sanctions
273:All open requests
203:About arbitration
176:
165:
151:
140:
123:
115:Proposed decision
112:
101:
90:
79:
78:
2592:
2567:my previous note
2443:
2363:Keegan Peterzell
2317:
1920:
1833:
1792:
1751:
1714:
1694:
1692:
1681:
1654:
1641:
1639:
1628:
1604:
1602:
1591:
1278:
1273:
1268:
1019:
921:
512:
505:
498:
486:
481:
474:
453:
409:Clerk procedures
401:
359:
330:Editor sanctions
307:Active sanctions
265:Open proceedings
235:
194:
180:
170:
159:
145:
134:
117:
106:
95:
84:
45:
44:
38:
30:Media Viewer RfC
2600:
2599:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2591:
2590:
2589:
2542:Alanscottwalker
2510:Alanscottwalker
2468:
2437:
2422:Alanscottwalker
2343:Alanscottwalker
2288:
2263:
2243:
2057:
1955:
1918:
1844:Alanscottwalker
1808:Alanscottwalker
1763:Alanscottwalker
1726:Alanscottwalker
1690:
1682:
1648:
1637:
1629:
1615:Alanscottwalker
1600:
1592:
1527:Alanscottwalker
1471:
1408:
1276:
1271:
1266:
1143:
1013:
919:
605:
532:
516:
482:
476:
475:
470:
460:
459:
458:
447:
430:
420:
419:
418:
405:
397:
385:
360:
355:
346:
336:
335:
334:
309:
299:
298:
297:
267:
257:
254:
239:
231:
209:
178:
52:
42:
34:
33:
32:
12:
11:
5:
2598:
2596:
2588:
2587:
2571:
2570:
2563:
2559:
2558:
2557:
2556:
2555:
2554:
2553:
2552:
2491:
2467:
2466:Staff accounts
2464:
2462:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2400:
2399:
2393:
2387:
2376:
2370:
2352:
2346:
2340:
2328:
2311:
2305:
2299:
2287:
2284:
2262:
2259:
2242:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2199:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2099:
2098:
2056:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2023:
2002:
2001:
1990:
1986:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1954:
1951:
1917:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1579:
1537:
1470:
1467:
1451:
1450:
1446:
1435:
1429:
1423:
1407:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1217:
1216:
1213:
1210:
1207:
1204:
1201:
1198:
1195:
1192:
1189:
1178:
1175:
1168:
1167:
1163:
1156:
1155:
1151:
1142:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1106:
1083:
1082:
1037:
1036:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
947:
853:
852:
834:
833:
808:
807:
785:
784:
760:
759:
729:
728:
725:
722:
721:
720:
717:
716:
715:
712:
711:Administrators
709:
706:
700:
697:
694:
691:
688:
685:
679:
673:
670:
664:
658:
652:
649:
646:
643:
640:
637:
634:
631:
628:
625:
604:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
531:
528:
518:
517:
515:
514:
507:
500:
492:
489:
488:
478:
477:
468:
466:
465:
462:
461:
457:
456:
448:
443:
438:
432:
431:
426:
425:
422:
421:
417:
416:
411:
406:
396:
391:
386:
381:
376:
371:
366:
361:
354:
348:
347:
342:
341:
338:
337:
333:
332:
327:
322:
311:
310:
305:
304:
301:
300:
296:
295:
290:
285:
280:
275:
269:
268:
263:
262:
259:
258:
256:
255:
250:
245:
240:
230:
223:
218:
210:
205:
199:
196:
195:
187:
186:
168:GorillaWarfare
82:Main case page
80:
77:
76:
75:
74:
67:
60:
48:
46:
35:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2597:
2586:
2582:
2578:
2573:
2572:
2568:
2564:
2561:
2560:
2551:
2547:
2543:
2539:
2538:
2537:
2533:
2529:
2525:
2521:
2520:
2519:
2515:
2511:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2500:
2496:
2492:
2489:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2478:
2474:
2465:
2463:
2460:
2459:
2455:
2451:
2447:
2441:
2431:
2427:
2423:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2410:
2406:
2397:
2394:
2391:
2388:
2384:
2380:
2377:
2374:
2371:
2368:
2364:
2360:
2356:
2353:
2350:
2347:
2344:
2341:
2338:
2335:
2332:
2329:
2325:
2321:
2315:
2312:
2309:
2306:
2303:
2302:John F. Lewis
2300:
2297:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2285:
2283:
2282:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2268:
2260:
2258:
2257:
2253:
2249:
2240:
2226:
2223:
2219:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2209:
2205:
2200:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2139:
2135:
2131:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2118:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2097:
2093:
2089:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2077:
2073:
2070:
2065:
2061:
2054:
2046:
2042:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2013:
2012:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2000:
1996:
1991:
1987:
1985:
1981:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1966:for everyone.
1964:
1963:
1962:
1959:
1952:
1950:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1936:
1933:
1930:
1927:
1923:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1894:
1889:
1888:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1836:
1830:
1826:
1825:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1795:
1789:
1785:
1784:
1779:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1754:
1748:
1744:
1743:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1717:
1711:
1707:
1706:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1693:
1687:
1686:
1679:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1659:
1652:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1640:
1634:
1633:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1613:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1603:
1597:
1596:
1590:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1500:
1497:
1491:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1476:
1475:John F. Lewis
1468:
1466:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1438:John F. Lewis
1436:
1433:
1430:
1427:
1424:
1421:
1417:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1405:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1376:John F. Lewis
1373:
1372:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1295:
1292:
1289:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1280:
1279:
1270:
1269:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1214:
1211:
1208:
1205:
1202:
1199:
1196:
1193:
1190:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1176:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1164:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:Core issues:
1140:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1107:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1094:
1089:
1085:
1084:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1017:
1016:John F. Lewis
1012:
1011:
1000:
996:
992:
987:
983:
978:
977:
976:
972:
968:
967:John F. Lewis
963:
962:
961:
957:
953:
948:
944:
943:
942:
938:
934:
933:John F. Lewis
929:
925:
917:
916:
915:
911:
907:
903:
899:
895:
894:
893:
889:
885:
884:John F. Lewis
881:
877:
876:
875:
871:
867:
862:
857:
856:
855:
854:
851:
847:
843:
842:John F. Lewis
838:
837:
836:
835:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
811:
810:
809:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
787:
786:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
762:
761:
758:
754:
750:
745:
744:
743:
742:
738:
734:
726:
723:
718:
713:
710:
707:
704:
703:
701:
698:
695:
692:
689:
686:
684:RFC initiator
683:
682:
680:
678:
674:
671:
669:
665:
663:
659:
657:
653:
650:
647:
644:
641:
638:
635:
632:
629:
626:
623:
622:
621:
616:
612:
610:
602:
594:
590:
586:
582:
581:
580:
576:
572:
568:
563:
562:
561:
557:
553:
549:
548:
547:
546:
542:
538:
529:
527:
524:
513:
508:
506:
501:
499:
494:
493:
491:
490:
485:
480:
479:
464:
463:
452:
449:
446:
442:
439:
437:
434:
433:
429:
424:
423:
415:
412:
410:
407:
404:
400:
395:
392:
390:
387:
384:
380:
377:
375:
372:
370:
367:
365:
362:
358:
353:
350:
349:
345:
340:
339:
331:
328:
326:
323:
320:
316:
313:
312:
308:
303:
302:
294:
291:
289:
286:
284:
281:
279:
278:Case requests
276:
274:
271:
270:
266:
261:
260:
253:
249:
246:
244:
241:
238:
234:
229:
227:
224:
222:
219:
217:
214:
211:
208:
204:
201:
200:
198:
197:
193:
189:
188:
185:
181:
177:
174:
169:
163:
158:
154:
149:
144:
138:
133:
129:
125:
121:
116:
110:
105:
99:
94:
88:
83:
72:
68:
65:
61:
58:
54:
53:
51:
47:
40:
39:
31:
27:
23:
19:
2523:
2469:
2461:
2436:
2401:
2382:
2331:Dennis Brown
2323:
2319:
2289:
2264:
2244:
2116:
2068:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2041:push to talk
2018:
2014:
2010:
2008:
1995:push to talk
1980:push to talk
1960:
1956:
1937:
1934:
1931:
1928:
1924:
1919:
1891:
1824:Dennis Brown
1823:
1803:
1783:Dennis Brown
1782:
1776:
1742:Dennis Brown
1741:
1705:Dennis Brown
1704:
1684:
1657:
1631:
1594:
1586:
1581:
1575:
1501:
1495:
1492:
1486:calling for
1480:Dennis Brown
1472:
1452:
1409:
1300:
1275:
1265:
1229:Release Plan
1225:Media Viewer
1218:
1185:
1181:
1169:
1157:
1154:mechanisms).
1144:
1061:push to talk
1021:
985:
981:
879:
860:
814:
788:
769:
730:
662:WP:CONEXCEPT
656:WP:CONEXCEPT
618:
614:
606:
589:push to talk
556:push to talk
541:push to talk
533:
522:
521:
152:
127:
126:
124:
97:
49:
2390:Peteforsyth
2267:m:Tech/News
2241:Case update
2189:Andrew Gray
2156:Andrew Gray
2026:Andrew Gray
1541:Cube lurker
1072:Alvesgaspar
1043:Alvesgaspar
1026:Alvesgaspar
823:Alvesgaspar
770:demonstrate
660:The use of
607:Carcharoth
248:Ban appeals
226:Noticeboard
128:Case clerks
2440:Carcharoth
2405:Carcharoth
2248:Carcharoth
2174:Beeblebrox
2152:since 2003
2130:Beeblebrox
1556:Beeblebrox
1456:Carcharoth
1390:Carcharoth
1354:Carcharoth
1335:Carcharoth
1320:Carcharoth
1250:Carcharoth
1188:edit them?
1111:Carcharoth
880:no correct
774:Carcharoth
749:Carcharoth
690:RFC closer
571:Carcharoth
552:WT:COI#RFC
454:(pre-2016)
441:Statistics
374:Procedures
157:Carcharoth
2367:Tgr (WMF)
2355:Eloquence
1940:Zell Faze
1893:Callanecc
1488:Eloquence
1445:evidence.
878:There is
708:WMF staff
668:WP:OFFICE
379:Elections
143:Callanecc
132:Lord Roem
2314:Ariconte
2088:Hchc2009
2009:move on'
1902:contribs
1291:darkness
1288:Intothat
104:Workshop
93:Evidence
28: |
24: |
22:Requests
20: |
2528:Kraxler
2450:Wbm1058
2444:I have
2396:JMP EAX
2383:actions
2349:Wbm1058
2170:request
2072:Carrite
2022:best...
2015:restart
1974:passed.
1778:itself.
861:correct
451:Reports
389:History
369:Members
364:Contact
352:Discuss
216:(CU/OS)
2562:Update
2379:Risker
2373:NE Ent
2204:Risker
2019:engage
1678:WP:AGF
1339:Risker
1304:Risker
1227:, and
1182:should
1150:(WMF).
1096:Risker
1047:Risker
733:Risker
530:Thanks
394:Clerks
252:Report
166:&
141:&
1691:Chat
1685:Pedro
1651:Pedro
1638:Chat
1632:Pedro
1601:Chat
1595:Pedro
1585:and "
1484:Pedro
1267:Scott
815:focus
609:wrote
428:Audit
16:<
2581:talk
2546:talk
2532:talk
2514:talk
2499:talk
2495:Pete
2477:talk
2454:talk
2426:talk
2409:talk
2336:and
2326:ner.
2308:Dank
2278:Nemo
2252:talk
2208:talk
2193:talk
2178:talk
2160:talk
2134:talk
2117:2006
2092:talk
2076:talk
2030:talk
1970:RfC.
1944:talk
1906:logs
1898:talk
1848:talk
1812:talk
1767:talk
1730:talk
1667:talk
1619:talk
1560:talk
1545:talk
1531:talk
1513:talk
1482:and
1460:talk
1442:Pine
1420:here
1394:talk
1380:talk
1358:talk
1343:talk
1324:talk
1308:talk
1277:talk
1254:talk
1235:and
1166:RfC.
1115:talk
1100:talk
1091:to
1076:talk
1051:talk
1030:talk
995:talk
982:some
971:talk
956:talk
937:talk
926:and
910:talk
888:talk
870:talk
846:talk
827:talk
801:talk
778:talk
753:talk
737:talk
575:talk
445:Talk
436:Talk
403:Talk
383:Talk
237:Talk
207:Talk
173:Talk
162:Talk
148:Talk
137:Talk
120:Talk
109:Talk
98:Talk
87:Talk
26:Case
2296:Wnt
2222:NE2
1834:WER
1793:WER
1752:WER
1715:WER
1663:Wnt
1572:Wnt
1509:Wnt
1496:not
1186:can
991:Wnt
952:Wnt
906:Wnt
866:Wnt
797:Wnt
319:Log
2583:)
2548:)
2534:)
2516:)
2501:)
2479:)
2456:)
2428:)
2411:)
2254:)
2210:)
2195:)
2180:)
2162:)
2136:)
2094:)
2078:)
2043:)
2032:)
2011:,
1997:)
1982:)
1946:)
1908:)
1904:•
1900:•
1850:)
1831:|
1829:2¢
1827:|
1814:)
1790:|
1788:2¢
1786:|
1769:)
1749:|
1747:2¢
1745:|
1732:)
1712:|
1710:2¢
1708:|
1688::
1669:)
1658:is
1635::
1621:)
1598::
1562:)
1547:)
1533:)
1515:)
1507:.
1462:)
1396:)
1382:)
1360:)
1345:)
1326:)
1310:)
1256:)
1223:,
1117:)
1102:)
1078:)
1063:)
1053:)
1032:)
997:)
986:if
973:)
958:)
939:)
912:)
890:)
872:)
848:)
829:)
803:)
789:My
780:)
755:)
739:)
591:)
577:)
558:)
543:)
155::
130::
113:—
102:—
91:—
2579:(
2544:(
2530:(
2512:(
2497:(
2475:(
2452:(
2442::
2438:@
2424:(
2407:(
2324:d
2320:a
2250:(
2206:(
2191:(
2176:(
2158:(
2132:(
2090:(
2074:(
2039:(
2028:(
1942:(
1896:(
1846:(
1810:(
1765:(
1728:(
1665:(
1653::
1649:@
1617:(
1558:(
1543:(
1529:(
1511:(
1458:(
1392:(
1378:(
1356:(
1341:(
1322:(
1306:(
1272:•
1252:(
1113:(
1098:(
1074:(
1049:(
1028:(
1018::
1014:@
993:(
969:(
954:(
935:(
908:(
886:(
868:(
844:(
825:(
799:(
776:(
751:(
735:(
573:(
511:e
504:t
497:v
399:+
357:+
321:)
317:(
233:+
175:)
171:(
164:)
160:(
150:)
146:(
139:)
135:(
122:)
118:(
111:)
107:(
100:)
96:(
89:)
85:(
73:.
66:.
59:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
