Talk:Wikimedia UK/Archive 1

Archive 1

User draft

An active member of the chapter created a draft article in his user space here. You may find the content and references there useful. At the moment, the controversies section is given undue weight, but that would be best fixed by expanding the rest of the article. I won't edit it myself - as a former board member, I'm a little conflicted. --Tango (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not sure what exactly to put in the infobox, but that makes it easier.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

WMF statement

Can this statement from the WMF be used in the article? Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested edit

"chapter organization of the Wikimedia Foundation" isn't really accurate. WMUK is a chapter of the Wikimedia movement, but the way that this sentence currently phrased suggests that WMUK is somehow a subdivision of the WMF, which it's not. I'd suggest it's changed to "chapter of the Wikimedia movement" or similar... The Cavalry (Message me) 09:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

We also now only employ one intern: See wmuk:Staff. It might also be good to change "Board member Steve Virgin" to "Then-board member Steve Virgin", because he was not re-elected at that AGM. The Cavalry (Message me) 09:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I think "associated with" describes it succinctly without being misleading or confusing. The intern change was also minor. However, the "then-board member" change does not strike me as necessary as the event is solidly placed in the past and we have current board members listed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for making the changes! The Cavalry (Message me) 16:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sections

I'd suggest rather than "controversies" (which is always a dodgy section title) the sections are reworked - so Gibraltarpedia is part of "Activities" and deals with the whole project + controversy. And then a "history" section or similar be started which includes AvH's resignation etc. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Those are things I considered, but putting these incidents in "activities" or "history" might give the impression that they are intimately connected with WMUK in a way that would actually create issues of undue weight. I feel it is more objective to simply give these issues their own section. At a core level these are issues involving individual staff that caused problems for WMUK and are not necessarily reflective of general issues with WMUK. Controversy sections are not strongly discouraged, it is just an issue of how extensive the section is compared to the rest of the article and I think that is quickly becoming a non-issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest we move the "Staff and Board of Trustees" section more to the end, after the body text. I also wonder – do we have precedents for this sort of list? My feeling is that the listing of board and staff members is a bit unusual for a charity of this size. JN466 15:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably the reason we do not often have such lists is either because an article on a charity of this size doesn't get enough attention for editors to add this information or there is not a listing available to the public view. As to its placement, I am planning to eventually expand that into something focusing more on its organization and structure so that would make the section more suitable to place there.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the staff list as its only source is the Wiki UK website, and some of them have never been mentioned in reliable sources (i.e. an undue weight problem). I expect that a bit of prose could be written around Richard's role which was formative for the new organisation, but not about each and every staff member or intern. The article about Wikimedia Foundation doesnt include such details. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

First sentence

What does "a chapter organization" mean? Is it an American phrase or just not one I've come across before? 87.254.72.244 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, American - in the UK just Wikimedians & Hell's Angels really. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it when adding registered charity per previous discussion section. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Errors

As a trustee I won't edit this myself, but:

• The first line should include the term "registered charity" which is the important one in the UK.
• "... The case resulted in him being barred from contributing to the English Wikipedia for an indefinite period.[33][34]" - The ability to apply for reinstatement after 6 months should be mentioned.
• "...was appointing an independent investigator to inquire into WMUK's governance standards and processes.[44]" - No, the review is a joint WMF/WMUK commission. "investigator" is the wrong word, not used by the parties: "expert consulant" would be better.

Generally references should include the actual statements from the parties (Arbcom, WMF, WMUK) instead of just relying on highly imprecise reporting by the likes of Fox News.

The article has many other issues, but these are the most glaring. The recent statement on the WMUK blog might be included, and there will be another statement on the review in a few days, after the contract etc is finished. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I just encountered this article, and I agree that there are many issues, and I'm worried about weight, but maybe the org is best known for its controversies as the good stuff doesnt get reported quite as much. I suspect GLAM-WIKI UK deserves a mention (see also GLAM (industry sector) and the talk page.

I've addressed the first of your concerns. I'm tangentially involved on the second, but on the third I would say that to the outside world it looks like an investigation when coupled with WMF removing donation-status. If the review comes back with four stars, new sources will reframe it as a review. The contract was to end in October? When can we expect the review? It would be good to include the date that the review is to be released, if it has been mentioned in a usable source. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I see the "the review will be published by January 31 2013, and in any event by 15 February 2013."[1] --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So not an "investigation" after all? Thanks for the changes you have made anyway. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

April EGM

I won't (as an ex-Trustee), but the passing of all the proposals at the EGM this weekend, changing the number & type of trustees, as recommended by the Compass Report, should be noted. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Has it been reported anywhere? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No [2] has not been updated yet, which is a bit poor. Stevie is on holiday, so no blog either. In the case of changes to the constitution primary announcements are a more reliable source than any journalist. Eventually it will be available from Companies House. Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Request edit

The article currently has a section on WMUK's board. This need to be updated.[3][4] There's also a misplaced comma just before reference 10 - "£,5000" instead of "£5,000" that can be fixed while you're at it. -- KTC (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This is an uncontroversial request and I have made it. Kilopi (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Changes please

Can someone update this please

   Chris Keating – Chair
   Michael Peel – Secretary
   Greyham Dawes – Treasurer
   Saad Choudri
   Michael Maggs
   Alastair McCapra

to

   As of October 2013

   Chris Keating – Chair 
   Greyham Dawes – Treasurer
   Saad Choudri
   Michael Maggs
   Alastair McCapra
   Carol Campbell
   Kate West

Link: https://wiki.wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Board

Thanks Jon Davies WMUK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.94.23 (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Y Done. BabelStone (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

Some additional thoughts here would be welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Using my name as a subtitle on this article

Could someone please change the sub-title "Ashley van Haeften" in the "Controversies" section. The nature of the summary heavily relies on spin by Fox News (not a well regarded source for facts) and completely misrepresents the nature of the ARBCOM case, which anyone can check by going and reading through it. Putting my full legal name as a header and repeating inflated news gossip does not make for an relevant encyclopaedia article about Wikimedia UK, it only serves to demean and ridicule.

If there is debate to be had on this, please raise it as a BLP case for review, those policies for respect should apply to me as an ex-trustee of Wikimedia UK, as they do to any other living person. Thank you. --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I did not think the section headings were necessary in the first place and I would have no objection to removing the heading or giving it a different name. I am curious what you think was inaccurate about the description of the case, though. The events that led to the case, such as your ban from Jimbo's talk, involved disputes over explicit content and it was such disputes that were a main cause of concern for members of off-wiki criticism sites. Everything else was explicitly stated during the case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I've revised this a bit - see what you think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for removing my full legal name as a section title. There is a separate issue of sources which I will raise as a new section below. Fæ (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Superfluous titillation

I have three requests below. I have chosen to raise these openly with the community rather than by hidden processes such as OTRS, and ask that they are discussed in line with the WMF board resolution which asks to treat "any person who has a complaint about how they are described in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same."

Request 1

Remove Fox News as an unreliable source

I would like the reference to Fox News removed. It uses a misleading title with "bondage porn ties", relies on EncyclopediaDramatica as a source, links to a highly inappropriate homophobic attack page there, and opens with the text "reports linked him to kinky bondage pornography" which is irrelevant and entirely misrepresents why the Arbcom case was created.

Request 2

Remove The Independent as superfluous and misleading

The Independent article is misleading by using the title "pornography row". Other sources, such as Civil Society used in the article, that copied The Independent article later changed their wording on my request after I pointed out that this was defamatory and not supported by the evidence. The Independent has a history of using material sent to them by lobbyists, virtually unchanged, and has a long history of making the "OMG porn" thesis about Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales. For this reason I believe The Independent source is unhelpful and easily replaced or superfluous when other sources are available.

Request 3

Integrate the controversy section, it encourages superfluous titillation

In general, "Controversy" sections are of debatable usefulness in encyclopaedia articles. If the development of a company or charity hinges on controversial events, then these are of use when integrated into the history of the organization, but giving these events their own section creates a situation where we have mini-BLPs that by-pass our WP:BLP1E guideline. This particular event may have been titillating for some, but in the history of Wikimedia UK it is not essential nor encyclopaedic. I would like to return to Wikipedia editing in 2014, however even with the passage of time, I still find see my name on this superfluous section upsetting, unkind, and see this unnecessary focus on titillating yellow journalism pieces a violation of WMF:Resolution:Biographies of living people.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I presume you mean The Daily Telegraph and not the The Independent. As it stands that source is backing up material stating the Committee agreed you were subjected to harassment. The Fox News article supports the same material, but it does not seem to be necessary. I removed Fox News, but removing the Telegraph piece seems a bit much. Your statement that it is "not supported the evidence" to say your sanction was connected to a "pornography row" is mistaken as all of that is reflected in the findings of fact. Seems a bit disingenuous for you to say the issue of pornography has no bearing on the case given that you yourself suggested disengaging from BLPs concerning pornographic actors during the case and your unblock was conditional on a topic ban concerning BLPs and images related to sexuality.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Updating chairman

Hello all. The Chair of Wikimedia UK in the infobox should now read 'Michael Maggs', as he has been chair since December 2013 (see https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Board). Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Updating board

Following the charity's AGM on 25th July, the composition of the board is now:

• Michael Maggs - Chair
• Carol Campbell
• Greyham Dawes - Treasurer
• Josie Fraser
• Gill Hamilton
• Chris Keating
• Simon Knight - Vice Chair (2014)
• Nick Poole
• Doug Taylor
• Kate West

The information can be referenced to: Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Not a ban"

@Pigsonthewing: With regards to this diff am I missing something? All the sources refer to it as a ban as does the Arbcom decision. How was it not a ban? Brustopher (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Read the section to which that was a heading. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to him being unbanned? Even if he was unbanned that doesn't change the fact that he was banned in the first place. Also the ban was the cause of the controversy, not the resignation (which was a result of the ban). I know the section uses the phrase "blocked," but this seems incorrect as the sources and Arbcom both described it as a ban instead of a simple block. Brustopher (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Nonetheless it is an odd section heading. WMUK is a UK entity, which is independent of WMF in legal terms. It is hard to imagine that if the chair of another UK charity was WP-banned it would be worth mentioning at all. Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That's because unlike the vast majority of UK charities WMUK is "established to support volunteers in the United Kingdom who work on Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia." Furthermore counterfactuals are irrelevant here, we report what the sources say. The issue which the sources highlight is the chair's ban from enwiki. The chair's ban from enwiki recieved coverage before his resignation.[5] Later coverage said that the ban was due to "the controversy over his ban." The sources cite his ban from Wikipedia as the controversial issue, not his resignation which was a result of the controversy. Brustopher (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course it was a ban. The point that Andy M is making is that it didn't remove him as chair of WMUK. He later chose to resign as WMUK chair (very probably after some pressure). Should the title (in an article on WMUK) imply that his departure was voluntary or enforced? As it's an article on WMUK, I'd have to favour "resigns" over "banned from en WP", even though both are accurate. You might favour "Resigns as chair of WMUK after ban at en WP", but that's verbose and probably even more confusing.

It is an article of faith at Commons that editors and admins should retain all privileges, even after being SanFranBanned – simply to "demonstrate the independence of Commons from WMF". Defence of this little Prague Spring at Commons has been quite heated of late. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Wikimedia UK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131203003631/http://www.gbc.gi/news/79/the-world to http://www.gbc.gi/news/79/the-world&
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120717044838/http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=25440 to http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=25440
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130211023803/http://www.civilsociety.co.uk:80/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity to http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/14428/wikimedia_uk_trustees_have_been_too_involved_to_govern_the_charity

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Please make new article for Ashely van Heaften

I have added story of Ashley van Heaften. Please make a BLP article on this notable parson for the reason he is 20 times more notable than Florence Devoaud. Mohsinpathania (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You could try doing this at WP:AFC. Although, you should note that an article about a purportedly less-notable person existing, is not generally accepted as a good reason for keeping an article -- new or otherwise -- at WP:AFD. This is discussed at WP:OTHERSTUFF. MPS1992 (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The article already exists, but is redirected here and is administrator lock. The salient point which is express at AFD of Devouad is if 'pedia had different standards for reliable sourcing of Wikimedia insiders versus outsiders BLPs. Mohsinpathania (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Was Devouad something to do with the French Wikipedia? Could you provide a link to the AFD that you mention, please? I am not saying it is relevant, I am just curious. MPS1992 (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Florence Devouard - past Wikimedia Foundation Chair. Latest AfD followed by a deletion review. Luridaxiom (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft is live at Draft:Ashley van Haeften please collaborate there Luridaxiom (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wikimedia UK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327135826/http://www.bristol247.com/2011/01/13/wikipedia-founder-in-bristol-to-celebrate-10th-anniversary/ to http://www.bristol247.com/2011/01/13/wikipedia-founder-in-bristol-to-celebrate-10th-anniversary/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020102109/http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=26079 to http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=26079

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)