Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Silver seren (talk | contribs) at 20:43, 18 July 2012 (→Apples and Oranges: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Discuss this story

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

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

  • And ArbCom has said otherwise. Until the time that they retract that statement, they're a reliable source for this article. - Jorgath (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Never going to happen. Especially when, i'm quite sure, WMUK doesn't care what Arbcom thinks. (And considering cases over the past year, they would have a point.) Indeed, though, this Signpost is a pretty good hatchet job. Tabloid news all the way, with all the speculation and unfounded accusations therein. Silverseren 22:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apples and Oranges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Claim about sex workers' privacy

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

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

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

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

Your best character reference is russavia? The guy who was indef'd for trolling along nationalistic fault lines with PolandBall BS? That's your stand up guy who should make the difference here?

Sometimes the lack of solid character references is as illuminating as all the evidence in the world.BadCharacterReference (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, perhaps you would like to explain why you need to set up abusive accounts to make your allegations? Thanks Fæ (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)