Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC

Statement by Alanscottwalker
Please note WP:CONEXCEPT, which is part of WP:CONSENSUS, which policy also calls for taking multiple views into account in formation of consensus. Moreover, we are in community with the WP:WMF. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You can take this case or not but what you should not do is contradict English community Wikipedia policy, as that is beyond your remit. The discussions of WP:OFFICE are a red herring, as that policy states it  does not contradict other policy.  At the time that these actions were taken, however, English Wikipedia community policy stated: "Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus." (emphasis added) And "Some matters that may seem subject to the consensus of the community at the English-language Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) are, in fact, in a separate domain. In particular, the community of MediaWiki software developers, including both paid Wikimedia Foundation staff and volunteers, . . ., are largely separate entities . ; . These independent, co-equal communities operate however they deem necessary or appropriate, such as adding, removing, or changing software features . . .WP:CONEXCEPT.  Now since there appears to be confusion over the red herring that is WP:Office perhaps you should take this case but the English Wikipedia community has policy, which states the representatives of the WMF may, by action, preempt claims of consensus - now perhaps this committee would like to get into the weeds of what the undefined term "designees" for software is but your fact finding on that is not going to be with the rest of the community, and you will probably end up with the committee's usual inability to bridge gaps in community policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Re to some below, the WMF does have authority. Its authority does not arise from English Wikipedia policy, which policy, by the way, has no binding claim.  Neither Enwiki, nor Enwikipedians can bind the WMF, and neither can Arbcom; even if we were to adopt a policy that only the WMF is bound by what we decide, it would be null and void from the beginning.  To the contrary, the WMF may bind all Users of all projects. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kww (uninvolved)
This is the second case this year I'm aware of this year where WMF staff members have used their powers in ways that violate the relationship between WMF and the community. The Javascript supporting English Wikipedia is under our control, and we are free to modify it based on community consensus. The Visual Editor fiasco set a fairly strong precedent in that regard, and Erik knows better. I would recommend reinstating the Javascript change and removing Erik's sysop status. Certainly the latter is solely a symbolic gesture, but sometimes symbols are all we have.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * One thing that strikes me here is the difference in implementation between this and the time I did essentially the same thing with Visual Editor.
 * The RFC was prolonged, and heavily advertised.
 * When it became clear that the WMF was not going to listen, I openly discussed that I was going to override them and sought input as to exactly what the best way to override them was.
 * When it became clear that they still wouldn't back down, I put a notice on WP:AN announcing the pending override and posted links to my intended override.
 * I maintained a countdown on WP:AN of impending implementation, and invited all administrators to test to ascertain that my fix didn't have any unintended side effect.
 * Some accused me of fomenting drama, but the actual intent was to gain consensus for the need to override the WMF. We didn't really have that here. While it needs to be made clear to Erik that his desysop threats were beyond problematic, I think we should also be clear that there needs to be a consensus building process before implementing any override that specifically addresses whether the problem is serious enough to warrant the override.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

NativeForeigner, if there is any positive result, it would be something to formalize what I wrote above. While there was a consensus that MediaViewer shouldn't be the default, there was not a consensus that it was worth overriding the WMF and exactly what that override should consist of. If the extra steps to do that had been taken, a working override could very well have been made to stick. I don't think Arbcom has the power to dictate that a specific consensus be sought, but it does have the power to recommend it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown
My concern is that an admin would threaten to unilaterally desysop someone using Foundation level tools for a singular edit that was clearly based on the request of the community as a whole. For me, it isn't about the act of reverting as much as the behavior when doing so. The threat was an amazingly brazen overreaction and unnecessarily inflammatory, particularly since he has the biggest hammer in the room. At a minimum, it is behavior that is unbecoming of an admin and serves to only drive a wedge deeper between the Foundation and the Community. Do we exclude Foundation members from the normal behavioral expectations and accountability of other admin? Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  15:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Begoon
Basically I agree witn Dennis. He's probably used to people agreeing with him, as he's an agreeable chap. Seriously.

Seriously though - this is crap. If the ultimate intention is to alienate established users and/or the people who've given most to this community, and have them piss off somewhere else, then this will work fine - the old guard will indeed piss off somewhere else, and WMF can create their brave new world. If that's not the intention, I'd recommend liberal apologies and a change of approach. Can I say "seriously" again? Begoon &thinsp; talk 16:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Risker

 * My initial statement
 * My response to Hammersoft
 * My response to Floquenbeam
 * My response to Gwillhickers
 * Comment about warnings


 * , I think you already know the answers to your questions. This isn't a freshly minted WP:CONEXCEPT interpretation; the overwhelming majority of edits to MediaWiki:Common.js are made by WMF staff, contractors, or developers who have earned a high degree of trust in their actions, usually with little or no community discussion or complaint. A WMF staff member is the person who reverted the VisualEditor change, too. In this case, there is no doubt that the script added did not reflect the recommendation of the RFC (regardless of what the close statement said), and even Pete Forsyth agrees with that and agrees it was appropriately reverted. You know that the edit in question falls within the exceptions of CONEXEPT, and even if it didn't, it is an edit any administrator can and should have made because it did not do what the person who added it intended for it to do. In other words, it doesn't matter. And the committee doesn't need to have another hissy fit about its jurisdiction.  Meanwhile, let's look at what the possible outcomes of the case would be, if accepted. Since both Pete (who added code he didn't understand to the .js in a way that affected every single user to the site) and Eloquence (who admits he was unduly stern with Pete) have both apologized for their actions, nobody's going to be desysopped. The Committee really doesn't want to get into the question of who "owns" the common.js and common.css - ask your colleague Lfaraone why it's a bad idea, and it has nothing to do with the WMF. The Committee can't do anything significant about the RFC, unless it wants to censure some of the more aggressive behaviours; it can't change the outcome or how that outcome is actualized. At most, it could recommend to the community that it consider certain rules for conducting RFCs on certain topics that have broad effect on the site. It would be a complete waste of your time, and that of everyone else involved. As  says, this is more a "govcom" issue than an arbcom issue, and English Wikipedia doesn't have a govcom.  It would be really nice if Arbcom stopped fighting so much with the WMF; 99% of the time, you are on the same side.  Risker (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Should the Arbitration Committee accept this case (and I do not advocate that it do so) then it should add as a party, as the originator of the code that created the problem. He either misunderstood what his code would do, or misrepresented it.  Risker (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ubikwit
Agree with the cogent statement made by Rsiker, and am commenting here simply to point out that the assessment of consensus in closes of various types of threads seems to be falling far short of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS and instead relying on numerical superiority in vote count. I don't think addressing that problem is an issue directly under the purciew of Arbcom, but Arbcom can certainly expose the problems if a case were to be accepted. In this particular case, disabling software functionality in which a substantial investment has been made seems to go against common sense, but there seems to be something of a tug-of-war between WMF and "the community" here. -- Ubikwit 連絡見学/迷惑 16:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

To clarify vis-a-vis the "tug-of-war", as Risker points out, there is a case to be made that WMF is not only protecting its investment, but standing up for the "over 14,000 of our colleagues" in the community that have "actively elected to make this software their default". Does WMF have a right to intervene in the case of a flawed community process? These increasingly seems ripe for Arbcom to accept a case.-- Ubikwit 連絡見学/迷惑 17:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Following this discussion has been informative. While User:Floquenbeam acknowledges "is a long history of dysfunction" in the community, it has been questioned as to whether it falls withing the scope of Arbcom to review administrative processes carried out by the community where there aren't any "serious conduct issues". I, for one, think that Wikipedia needs such a review mechanism, whether it be Arbcom or another body, as it would help ensure that policies and guidelines are applied uniformly, and put into focus aspects in need of further definition, streamlining, etc. If the type of mistakes that occurred in the RfC at issue are common (as others see to have indicated), there is probably a systemic issue.-- Ubikwit 連絡見学/迷惑 11:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Hammersoft (uninvolved)
The close of the RfC is lacking. We have many RfC closes that are problematic, and we have means of addressing that problem without the need of ArbCom stepping in. That the implementation of the closure was inappropriate and breaking is also a non-issue in so far as ArbCom is concerned. The statistics are not relevant either. I do, however, thank Risker for all of this.

The larger problem at hand here that needs to be addressed by ArbCom is this: Does the WMF have authority to do as they have done in this case or not? If not, what actions can ArbCom undertake that will prevent this from happening again? Conversely, what happens if ArbCom does not act in this case? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by S Philbrick
As Risker notes, there are multiple issues. One issue is how to ascertain consensus when the affected community might not be the same as the editing community. I haven't followed the RfC, or the debate, so treat the following as abstract - if there is an issue for which the viewing community might reach a different conclusion than the editing community, how do we obtain the overall consensus. It seems plausible that non-editing readers might prefer a different conclusion than editing members of the community, yet without some way to reach out and query non-editors, we judge consensus on the feedback of the editors.

The other specific issue is the threatening to de-sysop an admin who attempts, even if incorrectly, to implement what is viewed as a community consensus. If I say per Dennis, my point might get less weight, so I'll emphasize that the WMF should not be making such a threat. We have DR mechanisms, they are not just for editors, they apply to WMF employees as well. While there are exceptions for legal issues, I see nothing to suggest that such an exception applies in this case.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Scott
I initiated the AN discussion linked to above. I have no comment on the legitimacy of the RfC, and happen to use Media Viewer by choice myself, even though it needs a fair amount of work. If I had discovered it to have been disabled for me due to the "fix", I would have been unhappy, but no doubt a technical correction would have been implemented in short order. My concern, as at the AN discussion, is the threat of temporary desysopping as a "WMF action" made towards Peteforsyth by Eloquence. I would like the Committee to investigate its basis. —  Scott  •  talk  17:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Addition: I concur with Hasteur's argument below regarding editable site elements. —  Scott  •  talk  10:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, what outcomes (concrete actions) would those asking for a case like to see?: —  Scott  •  talk  13:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) A requirement for WMF staff to be identified in username with (WMF) when acting in any official capacity, without exceptions. No special privileges just for having been around a while. Yes, as MZMcBride notes below, that's clunky, but so what? A startling amount of this website is clunky or just straight-up hacky. That's the least of our worries.
 * 2) A strong rebuke of Eloquence for improperly threatening a contributor acting in good faith. If Eloquence is to retain his access to the tools, he should do so with the knowledge that it is as a privilege granted by the community's duly elected body, not as a right.
 * 3) Relatedly, the designation of any future instances of improper threats of tool use by WMF staff as qualification for the use of Level II procedures for the removal of advanced permissions (behavior inconsistent with the level of trust required for advanced permissions).
 * 4) [I got this from :] The issuance of an open call to the WMF leadership to form a technical review board for all new software, with heavy representation by veteran editors.

Statement by Alvesgaspar
I strongly suggest Arbcom to look into this issue in a broader scope than the one specified above. In my opinion there are two important points that should be addressed carefully:


 * 1) Enforcing MediaViewer as a default against the opinion of the volunteer editors, the ones who keep this project rolling, is a dangerous precedent which has already broken the trust and may poison the relationship with WMF in the future;
 * 2) MediaViewer is far from being ready and its several drawbacks have been extensively described in the various discussions. However the policy of fait accompli adopted by WMF leaves no real option for the new users/editors, who know nothing about opt-ins and opt-outs.

Yes, I’m aware that this committee has no formal power over WMF but a recommendation from you might help solving the dispute and bring WMF to reason. As someone has already pointed out, please think of the consequences of not accepting this case. - Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

PS - I’m not sure that all members of this committee fully understand the importance of the case for this project and this community. Do you realize that not accepting it will be understood as a tacit approval of the recent WFM actions? And that WFM will use that as an argument for continuing its aggressive policy and consolidate its growing power? You were elected as representatives of us all and we expect you to defend this project and this community. Now that we asked your help in an extremely important case (probably the most important for any of you), you quit because you are not sure what Arbcom can do? What about trying and do your very best? Yes, I know that the only weapons you have are those of moral authority and influence. But these can be extremely effective, especially when reason are on our side. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I share the concerns of WJBscribe below of this case becoming something like the wiki community vs WFM. However its seriousness goes well beyond a poorly handled RfC or an abuse of a deputy director. The core of the conflict lays in the autistic attitude of the MV team, not in the editor’s community response to it. This drama would deflate instantaneously if WMF gave up enforcing MediaViewer as a default and started a genuine dialogue instead. Otherwise mutual animosity will tend to grow and the AGF principle will erode rapidly on both sides. In my opinion the ball is, and has been for a long time, on WMF's side. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Guerillero
I don't think that arbcom can take up this issue. We don't own Wikipedia; the WMF can do what it pleases when it pleases. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  18:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Formerip
Agree with Hammersoft and others that the correctness of the close and the appropriateness of the fix are not the real issues here. To the degree to which the community has sovereignty over the organisation of en.wp (while acknowledging that this sovereignty is not absolute), it is free to manage its internal affairs as badly and messily as it likes. I'm not making any judgement at all about the close or the fix, but WMF was neither needed nor welcome to help us get it right in either case.

. The committee has a legitimate role in resisting any inappropriate erosion of the authority of the community. Because there has been an attempt to inappropriately invoke WMF authority, this situation should, IMO, be brought to a close either with an unequivocal apology from Eloquence or, failing that, the clearest possible statement from the community that Eloquence was out-of-line. It will be unfortunate if such a satisfactory outcome needs forcing, but if it does then it does, and an ArbCom case will be the way to do that. Formerip (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade
This is a very difficult case. I don't think, like the previous incident involving WMF mentioned here, that this can just be resolved by motion. That case, unlike this one, unquestionably involved an office action. Under normal circumstances, there would be at least two things to examine, that being Eloquence's use of normal admin tools to revert a protected page in defiance of the result of an RfC rather than challenging the closure, and his threat to use staff tools out of process. The classification of these as a "WMF action" throws an additional wrench into these. Those are not Office actions as described there, since it clearly states that "Office actions only occur by formal complaint made off-wiki...", clearly not the case here. So the first question is whether Eloquence's edit and subsequent issuing of the threat is acceptable, and whether actions can be carte blanche designated as beyond challenge by WMF employees outside the recognized scope where that happens today (office complaints and legal matters).

There's also questions raised as to what the consensus is. The proposed edit would have disabled Media Viewer entirely, even for those who want it. That outcome wasn't really contemplated by the RfC, but is the only way to implement to some degree its outcome. The admin who made it has indicated they didn't know it would do that and probably wouldn't have done it if they did know. The only known way to reach that outcome is with developer/sysadmin assistance, which Eloquence has clearly indicated will not be provided. Therefore, the possibility of implementing the next-best thing is one that would under normal circumstances be at least considered.

That being said, I think ultimately the Committee should take the case to at least examine what happened here, and to handle any portions it can. The idea that a WMF staffer can by fiat make any action into an unchallengeable "WMF action" even without emergency or legal risk being at play is a troubling one, and shouldn't pass unexamined. I don't know what could be done aside from to register disapproval (as several have pointed out, at the end of the day the WMF owns the servers and will do as they please regardless of the outcome here), but I think at least the possibility of registering such disapproval should be examined.

Statement by Go Phightins!
I encourage ArbCom to accept this case, as it deals with prevalent issues such as the role of WMF employees. One area it could explore is what a "WMF action" is, as it does not fall under the criteria of office actions. Moreover, there is ambiguity as to how we distinguish a WMF employee acting as a volunteer from a WMF employee using their personal account to act as a WMF employee. I am inclined to agree with Dennis above when he notes that the most startling aspect of this case is the manner in which an admin reverted the action of another admin. Regardless of whether the action should have been reverted (and I think most agree on that point), the manner in which it was done is unbecoming of an administrator, not to mention the deputy director of WMF. That said, we have no recourse against Erik acting in his role as deputy director of WMF, meaning it is difficult to distinguish the roles, which again brings me back to the fact that ArbCom should accept the case to review not only this specific action, but the method in which the community and WMF employees act. One final note – someone above noted that ArbCom may not have jurisdiction here ... the policy states "The Committee has no jurisdiction over: (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff; " - how are we to know that this was an official action of WMF or its staff when it was made from a personal account, by an administrator duly elected by the community acting in an area that required admin privileges? There is significant ambiguity here that the committee ought to review.  Go  Phightins  !  19:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kevin Gorman
I agree with Risker's analysis of the problematic nature of the RfC, its close, and the implementation of its close. I don't believe that reviewing Erik's action is within Arbcom's scope. He clearly stated that he was acting in his capacity as WMF's DD, and he's certainly among the members of WMF empowered to conduct office actions. I see no great disconnect between Erik's action and WP:OFFICE - particularly since it says office actions can be made as the result of complaints lodged during personal meetings, and since Erik and Fabrice work in the same building, I'd imagine there was a personal meeting involved. Even if there was a disconnect between the two, WMF in general and probably Erik personally can unilaterally rewrite WP:OFFICE without needing the consent of the community anyway. And, additionally, even if there was an issue theoretically within arbcom's mandate, what the bloody hell would they do? They can't revoke +staff privileges from someone, even if they decided it was warranted.

The RfC close was bad. Shitty closes happen multiple times a day. I doubt the closer will do it again. Shitty closes don't warrant arbcom cases. Pete should have examined the RfC, its closure, and how he was implementing it more thoroughly and realized that what he did was not a good idea. I can't imagine that he will fail to do so in similar situations in the future. The fact that Pete mucked up a bit in a way that is unlikely to occur is not going to get him desysopped or any other meaningful punishment - it's Pete. It might get him admonished with a featherbrush or some such silliness, but that's a meaningless result that's not worth the time and drama that handling an arbcom case involves.

I don't see any reason for the committee to accept this. People made mistakes, and we should all move on from the situation. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, @GP - many longtime staffers only use one account for both personal edits and work related edits. Eloquence is both Erik's personal account and his work account.  He indicated in this situation he was acting in his official capacity, and I can't recall a case offhand where he failed to indicate that he was acting in his official capacity, so I see no serious issue there. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nick
I would urge some form of acceptance to review the RfC, which wasn't just badly closed, but poorly executed in its entirety. It was badly advertised and did not gain a suitable volume of responses from representative cross section of the community. Nick (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I was not aware of the RfC until I saw this arbcom case about it. Reading about it now, it seems that the issues are:
 * 1) Was the RfC a representative summary of the communities views?
 * 2) Was the closure correct and in good faith?
 * 3) Was the action as a result of the closure correct and in good faith?
 * 4) Was Eloquence's action an OFFICE action?
 * 5) If so, was this a correct use of the OFFICE action policy?
 * 6) If not, was it a correct and proportionate admin action made in good faith?

Personally, I think it would be beneficial to take the following action:
 * Pass a motion prohibiting anyone making any changes to the way MediaViewer is or is not enabled and applied on the English Wikipedia, including the Javascript. This to last until further notice or dismissal of this case request (whichever happens first).
 * Post a statement, independent of the acceptance or dismissal of the case, about whether each of the individual issues is within its jurisdiction (it is possible for something to be within jurisdiction but not rising to the level of arbitration, and for something to be arbitration-level but outside jurisdiction). Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur
"Regarding site stylesheets and JavaScript, we regard them as subject to the same development policy that governs code that is executed server-side; i.e., WMF makes the final call regarding software deployed to sites hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation." The foundation may regard that the foundation makes the final call about stylesheets and Javascript, however if that is the case then they should be 100% edit protected from being edited from within the wiki. That these pages are editable suggests that the foundation is giving the pages back to the community to have a more collaberative environment and should only use the "My Servers" argument when the change seriously affects the servers. Hasteur (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis
I frankly couldn't care less what de jure authority the Wikimedia Foundation thinks it retains over its websites. Wikipedia has long since ceased to be a small domain run by a group of programmers &mdash; it is possibly the single most popular source of information in the entire world. This project would be nothing without the people who built it from the ground-up.

If I were in Peteforsyth's position, I would feel grossly offended by such a brazen display of authoritarianism. I would also feel as if arguing against it would be futile, seeing as it came from the Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. I haven't actually looked into the specifics of this case, but I think it's possible that Pete erred in his decision to disable MediaViewer entirely. Making a mistake doesn't warrant such a heavy-handed response. Does Erik's status as a long-term WMF employee exempt him from the same rules that apply to everyone else?

I would like the Arbitration Committee to accept this case. Not only could it help to resolve this situation, it would also better define the role of the WMF in present-day Wikipedia. Kurtis (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Only in Death
Much as Risker would love to muddy the waters above, questioning the RFC result (or the process itself) should not be in scope for this case. RFC's as they are currently organised are the best way to get a reading of community consensus even with their faults. And in this case the consensus was clear. Want to complain about the failings of the RFC process? Take that to...an RFC.

Specifically Arbcom should be concerning itself with Eloquence's 'WMF action' rationale, which reads as 'we will do anything we want because we can regardless of project consensus that we shouldnt' and if threatening to de-sysop local admin staff was appropriate.

Personally I think a greater discussion also needs to be had about the WMF's recent trend of attempting to use en-wp as both a testing ground and PR vehicle for the WMF development team's latest waste of donor money, but I suspect that is out of scope for Arbcom. Maybe there needs to be an RFC on future software "improvements" Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to comment that Risker's addendum above where she said Eloquence 'successfully prevented an edit war' by threatening to desysop pete *requires* the basic stance that Pete fully intended to edit war. Risker, FUD much? Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite
I recommend taking this case, with a view to examining what seems a pretty clear case of tool abuse by Erik Moeller/Eloquence. He is clearly an involved party in terms of his professional interest in seeing adoption of this new software initiative over the head of the En-WP community and he has left the reservation by threatening desysopping, it seems to me. If he is found to be an abusive administrator, he should suffer sanctions like anyone else. Carrite (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
I see no case here. I do see a case for a dialogue about the relation between the Foundation, and Foundation Staff, and the community. These issues cannot be resolved by an Arbcom case, but instead need a radical re-thinking of cultural issue, possibly including the remit of the Foundation itself.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC).

Statement by Gwillhickers
I respectfully disagree with and  and their rather narrow assessment of the RfC and their apparent lack of faith in the Wikipedia process altogether. The RfC in question ran for over a month and many dozens of (mostly frequent/experienced) editors weighed in. Like any other poll, the RfC reflects the greater picture. We don't have to interview every solitary editor to ascertain that Media Viewer is not needed or wanted by the greater majority of editors and readers at English Wikipedia, as MV was 'introduced' with many bugs and faults, many of which it still has. It would be sort of naive to assume that most other editors would not arrive at a similar opinion of Media Viewer, given all its problems. The RfC in question is also consistent with WMF's own feedback page. (1, 2( archived )), filled with negative feedback, which probably explains why they recently removed the feedback link from Media Viewer. What is most troubling is that the WMF project team are not only ignoring the RfC, and their own feedback, they are ignoring their own statistics(1, 2}, which clearly reveal that on English Wikipedia the greater bulk of editors and readers alike do not need or want MV to remain the default. Still, the individuals on the WMF project team refuse to make 'any' concessions and at least not make MV the default viewer for logged in users/editors on English Wikipedia. Now there is a similar RfC being conducted by Commons and I think at this point it's safe to assume the WMF will be ignoring this RfC also. I have asked to clarify the response/comments he made regarding the closure of the RfC of June 2014 but this, like other questions, continue to be ignored. In light of this, it is good to see that the issue has finally been brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The numbers of edits you flouted made by registered users doesn't say much by itself, and this has already been addressed as anyone who has payed attention to this ongoing issue knows. To repeat, most editors don't care about the Media Viewer issue, obviously. If they did we would seem more comment, for and against, both on the Media Viewer feedback page and in the RfC of June. Of those editors who 'do' care there is a clear consensus to disable on two separate RfC's and on the Media Viewer feedback page (which you seem to be ready to dismiss also). Are you also willing to dismiss WMF's own statistics as "hyperbole" also? I linked to them above. WMF's own statistics are consistent with two RfC's. Did you even bother to look at them before you took off with your slew of additional comments? Your suggestion that because most editors didn't comment and/or disable that there is no support to disable ignores the facts that 1. Large numbers of editors make edits with no clicks/views of images -- esp among editors that just go around and do routine fixes and cleanup. There are many.  2. Media viewer was presented with no disable feature, and when it was finally included, it was put at the bottom of the pop up menu, which itself is mostly hidden. 3. That most editors with even nominal experience would naturally oppose a viewer that was and continues to be beset with bugs and faults. Again, the RfC of June was very indicative of the consensus among editors, like any other well run poll. Again, we don't have to hear from 100,000+  editors to know that Media Viewer is rife with bugs and faults and as such it will naturally receive and continue to receive overwhelming negative feedback, as revealed on two RfC's, the MV feedback page and WMF's own statistics. Are you saying no decision should be made anywhere, including here, until we hear from 100,000+ editors?? And would that also include any decision to keep MV as a default? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This may be a bit off topic so I'll keep it short. Though I am not in agreement with Nick (and a couple of others) about the way the RfC of June was conducted, it ran for more than a month btw, I am in entire agreement that it was poorly advertised. I had alerted a couple of users and would have posted more notices but did not want to invoke canvassing issues. I also did not know about this Arb'Com until I found out about it inadvertently on someone's talk page two+ days after it was initiated. While we're at it, I was completely unaware of Media Viewer itself until it was forced on everyone as a default viewer. My point: When matters of this level of importance emerge why are they not posted on the front page of Wikipedia?? A small section devoted to 'Important Announcements' should be added. And when I say 'important', I mean very important, and the notice should stand for at least a week. This would also alert the average readers who by and large don't have a clue about most things involving WP. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Pine
I appreciate Arbcom being willing to consider this case. I would like to comment on points made by Risker. Risker wrote, "Should you accept this case, you need to start with the "root cause", which is the non-standard activation of the RFC, the inadequate advertisement and participation in the RFC, and the inaccurate assessment of consensus that was made to close the RFC."
 * "Some statistical information:
 * "Prior to MediaViewer being activated as the default media viewer, 14,681 English Wikipedia editors had voluntarily opted in for it to be their default viewer.
 * "As of around 0600 UTC today, 1652 English Wikipedia editors had actively disabled MediaViewer, either through their preferences or by clicking the "disable" button when looking at an image with MediaViewer (which alters their preferences).
 * "There were only 111 editors who participated in any way in the RFC. Of those:
 * "64 supported disabling MediaViewer as default for logged-in users
 * "43 supported disabling MediaViewer as default for logged-out users

Armbrust has agreed to add the words "by default" to the close. A review by Arbcom of the close is unnecessary.

I disagree with Risker that "you need to start with the "root cause", which is the non-standard activation of the RFC, the inadequate advertisement and participation in the RFC..." I see no way in which this RfC was activated in a non-standard manner. The discussion was tagged as an RfC with the usual method, was announced on the Village pump (technical), and was announced on the Media Viewer talk page. There was plenty of notice, and the RfC remained open for a full 30 days. Also, it is commonplace on English Wikipedia for RfCs with a relatively small percentage of the editing population to make decisions that affect all editors. There is no minimum participation level required for an RfC beyond what is necessary to establish consensus.

The statistics cited about activation and deactivation numbers are irrelevant to the RfC and Consensus policies as we currently have them. A review of the statistics would be entirely appropriate for WMF and the community to consider in making decisions, but those statistics do not substitute for an RfC any more than public opinion surveys would substitute for an official election in most democracies.

There is no deficiency with regards to policy for the creation, notice, and level of participation in the RfC, and I hope Arbcom will issue a finding that this is the so. For Arbcom to find otherwise would be to open countless RfCs to challenges on the basis that they were inadequately advertised or that participation was insufficient.

--Pine✉ 07:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken
The relationship between the WMF and the en.wiki community is complex and co-dependent, and primarily determined by politics and diplomacy. The later has been rather lacking on the WMF side recently, I would hate to see it also deteriorate on the en.wiki community side as well (as a community, not in terms of individuals). Further, I see nothing in the statement of ArbCom's Scope of responsibilities which allows for political or diplomatic ventures, nor do I see anything there that allows ArbCom to determine its own remit. It can certainly determine how much or how little it concerns itself with the five statements of Committee responsibility, but it cannot grant itself new powers or authorities ootside of those five, which are:
 * 1) To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;
 * 2) To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
 * 3) To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools;
 * 4) To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;
 * 5) To approve and remove access to (i) CheckUser and Oversight tools and (ii) mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee. Nothing of the current request fits into those 5 categories which define and limit ArbCom's scope, with the exception of the behavioral issues of the editors involved -- but since apologies have been given, and repetition of specific acts has been disavowed, I don't see what good that would do. The upshot here is that there's really no case for ArbCom to consider, since most of the issues are outside of its remit, and those that are within seem to be under control.  I would suggest that absolutely no good will come for anyone by ArbCom venturing into uncharted waters when they are not charged to do so.  If you should arrive at a decision that the WMF disagrees with, one could say, like President Andrew Jsckson (apocryphally) said about Chief Justice John Marshall: "He has made his decision, now let him enforce it."  BMK (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466
According to the Media Viewer survey results, in the English Wikipedia –


 * 1,376 = 28% of all respondents said the feature was useful
 * 2,947 = 61% of all respondents said the feature was not useful
 * 520 = 11% of all respondents were not sure
 * Total number of English Wikipedia respondents: 4,843 (the English Wikipedia represented the biggest sample in the survey).

Of the 4,843 English Wikipedia respondents, 3,842 stated their role (reader, editor or frequent editor), and only
 * 37% of self-identified readers said the feature was useful
 * 21% of self-identified editors said the feature was useful
 * 16% of self-identified frequent editors said the feature was useful

This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the feature, and in fact very similar to the RfC result. Going by those results, shouldn't the WMF itself refrain from implementing the Media Viewer in the English Wikipedia? Andreas JN 466 10:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Redrose64
I would like to take exception with the claim of "Media viewer was presented with no disable feature, and when it was finally included, it was put at the bottom of the pop up menu, which itself is mostly hidden." (also stated by one or two others in differing words).

When first introduced, on or about 22 November 2013, the feature was opt-in, and the setting that controlled it was at. When it was enabled for all users on en.wp, on 3 June 2014, it changed from being opt-in to opt-out, and the setting that controlled it moved from the Beta features tab to, where it remains. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Stefan2
I find some actions remarkable:
 * One editor inserted code in MediaWiki:Common.js which he did not fully understand. This is obvious from the edit summary: he wrote that he was disabling the Media Viewer by default, but instead he disabled the Media Viewer for everyone who doesn't explicitly override that code by adding a line to his own Special:MyPage/common.js. As changes to MediaWiki:Common.js immediately affect all users (logged in and IPs), someone adding code to that page should be absolutely certain that the code is correct. If you do not know if the code is correct, then test it first, and if you are still uncertain, then ask someone else for help. You can test the code by adding it to your own Special:MyPage/common.js. I do not think that the arbitration committee can do anything about this.
 * One editor reverted the edit to MediaWiki:Common.js and threatened to desysop the editor who had inserted the code there. I think this is an overreaction to say the least, and the user was abusing his power. Discuss the matter with the editor instead. The arbitration committee could maybe investigate if something wrong was done here. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by llywrch (uninvolved)
puts forth a fair expression of what I think the issues here are, but some of the statements or responses by the ArbCom I see there are some points that need further explaining. Due to length constraints, I will only state one of them. It is important that the ArbCom express an opinion in this matter. Not to discuss "jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction", but as an expression of what our community thinks is fair & reasonable. aptly stated above that the Foundation has "the power to do whatever they like, including desysoping and/or banning anyone for any reason, good or bad; we essentially have no recourse, other than, as is sometimes said, our "right to fork" and our "right to leave." This is true only so far. If done correctly, right to fork could be a death sentence to the English Wikipedia. By that, if enough Wikipedians saw reason to quit & leave to start another project, the English Wikipedia would lose momentum, volunteers & contributions -- in effect what happened to XFree86. So far, most forks of Wikipedia have failed because none have provided a strong argument to fork. However, one fork at the Spanish Wikipedia was more successful than es.wikipedis for many years -- which was over whether Wikipedia would accept advertising; while the fork has faded in importance, Wikipedia & its related projects remain non-profit. I talk at length about forking because were the ArbCom to decide to sanction an employee of the Foundation -- to admonish, strip of privileges or outright ban -- & this were to lead to a power struggle, we would have a strong argument that a fork is called for & perhaps kill the English Wikipedia. This is a power that the ArbCom has & needs to remind the Foundation the community has; it is in both our best interests to negotiate, not to threaten. -- llywrch (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Pedro (uninvolved)
I understand the concerns of accepting a case here, but the crass de-sysop threat from Eloquence (noting that Pete isn't too fussed - credit to him) needs more than a brush off. Let alone the utter lack of WP:AGF we don't go around this place making threats like that - honestly it's like the language of the playground. Eloquence - you're a bully and should be ashamed - but of course you won't be because bullies never are. Pedro : Chat  19:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Noting some reluctance now from the committee, I think within the technicalities of remit and jurisdiction an important point is (to the benefit of the bully) going to be lost. threatened a desysop over a good faith action. Yes, he's now admitted (begrudgingly) his mistake but surely, WMF employee or not, we don't let that go unchallenged? If you, ARBCOM, let this bully escape this time then more fool you - he's the type of character that will be back strengthened by the lack of action. Eloquence's conduct should be examined with a view to admonishment if not desysop on this project. Pedro :  Chat  19:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No. (seriously - just wow). We give warnings for actions that look bad faith (vandalism etc.). For mistakes we give advice. According to your logic we threaten blocks when someone hashes up an info box. Let's think newbie admin cocking up the ITN template adding an item that's received clear consensus to post. Pedro : Chat  19:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Former arbitrator and editor User:Risker has just tipped on up at my talk with a load of semantic waffle that clearly shows she barely has a grip on the issue at hand. . I'd urge ARBCOM that this chilling effect from the former "powers that be" implies you really ought to take this case, at the very least for appearances sake. Pedro : Chat  21:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by 123chess456
I think that ArbCom shouldn't take the MediaViewer aspect of the case, and we should hold an RfC that is heavily advertised throughout the English Wikipedia, with banners possibly on every page soliciting opinions on the question of MediaViewer. I am a bit torn however, between the question of an ArbCom ruling on official WMF actions. I think we should move forwards with including the words "WMF" and the words "Office Action" in a way that emphasizes that the edit or admin action was an official office action. If the WMF tries to assert complete control over Wikipedia, a large amount of editors will exercise the right to fork, fragmenting Wikipedia's user base. This will probably be covered in many major news outlets, so there will be no way to prevent a mass exodus of Wikipedia's core editor base. Bad things will happen to Wikipedia if the WMF decides to press forwards. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Solarra (uninvolved)
Normally I do not comment on ArbCom cases, but this is far too important in my view. Strictly speaking on the merits of the case, the issues being discussed here are of the fundamental relationship of the en.wiki community and the WMF. As a non-profit dedicated to this and like projects, the WMF exists solely to serve the community of the various projects it runs. There is clear history in the diffs provided above of a dubious past with project improvements being implemented regardless of the desire of the community they serve. While I understand and other's reasoning, but this is one of those instances where a final voice needs to be heard on that fundamental relationship between the Foundation and the Community it supports. If the community has no remedial authority over the WMF, the fundamental trust that must exist in that relationship is fundamentally damaged. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪  ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀  01:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by BrentLaabs
Under clause 1 of WP:AP, ArbCom jurisdiction covers all actions on English Wikipedia (enwiki). Clause 2 states ArbCom has no jurisdiction over actions of the WMF; this is a natural consequence of the WMF being a separate organization from English Wikipedia. The conduct in question took place entirely inside the English Wikipedia, thus ArbCom's jurisdiction.

Unlike the WMF, which represents a wide range of constituencies worldwide, ArbCom is exclusive to enwiki. Its members are elected by the community, and its powers are derived from the community.

This is not about the right to fork, which is an individual right. This about the fact that editors of the English Wikipedia should be recongized as a distinct community. The community provides the content, manages its own membership, and funds the WMF's maintenance of this site. WMF's multi-faceted support notwithstanding, none of it would exist without the volunteer community.

The community delegates the authority for WP:OFFICE to the WMF, so that the wiki runs smoothly. The WMF has the power to do so, of course, but the authority to lock pages is derived from the people who contribute and edit every day. The fact that the action to enforce Media Viewer's status was taken under the WMF's aegis is moot, as authority over the community ultimately devolves to the community and its representatives.

By enjoining the RfC, the Engineering/Product Department of used the WMF's power to violate the community norms; but under WP:CONEXCEPT they are a "co-equal community". They further declined to implement the defaults change. and have claimed that the interpretation of the community consensus was incorrect; the latter enforced this position, and in so doing abrogated the authority of the enwiki community. It is immaterial if they were correct or not -- the WMF simply has no authority to determine consensus here.

Nothing in WP:CONEXCEPT limits the authority of ArbCom, as it is not limited by consensus but by its own politicies. Even WMF actions may only preempt consensus, but ArbCom may act without consensus, as representatives of the community at large and representing the authority thereof.

As for remedial actions, I recommend that ArbCom rule:
 * That removing Media Viewer was the established consensus
 * 's override of consensus was out of order, and warrants revocation of sysop status.
 * That Media Viewer default be set to off immediately. The WMF may have the power to deny this, but not the authority.
 * Schedule a new RfC to better assess the community's opinion on Media Viewer in two months' time. This cooldown will allow the development team time to improve the product above its current "early beta" level, and allow the community more time to assess the proposed change.  See also WP:REALPROBLEM, WP:TIND.
 * Work to ensure that the opinions of the English Wikipedia are respected by the WMF, and not simply ignored for convenience. Enwiki is a separate community, and so deserves true "co-equal" status with the WMF -- not top-down use of power.

Revert, regroup, resubmit RfC. BrentLaabs (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by User:Robert McClenon
This is an extremely difficult case for reasons for the organization of Wikimedia, but it is a simple case technically with difficult implications. On the one hand, in a legal sense, WMF owns the servers, and so can do with them anything that it wants to do with them, such as implement inadequately tested software. On the other hand, in a human sense, WMF exists only to support the multiple Wiki communities, and so should listen to the communities, since the servers and the software on the servers exist to support the use of the Wikis by the community, not in a vacuum. Any case brought by the community, whether through RFC or through the ArbCom as the highest-level representative of the community, is a request to the WMF to remember the difference between its legal supremacy and its human status as a janitor. The ArbCom has no actual authority except to identify and sanction conduct issues, either by English Wikipedia editors or by WMF employees as English Wikipedia editors. (I haven't studied the case and don't know if there have been conduct issues.) That is, the ArbCom is being asked primarily to petition or request rather than to adjudicate.

However, as noted, this is a technically a simple case with difficult implications. The WMF has, unfortunately, a long record of listening to its developers rather than to its communities. The most notorious recent example was Visual Editor, which was scheduled for implementation more than a year ago, and still should only be considered to be in test.

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case, knowing that they are acting in a role that is not typical for the English ArbCom, primarily as the representative of the English Wikipedia community, who have so far been ignored. I would ask that the ArbCom: Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Look into whether any English Wikipedia editor, or WMF employee as an English Wikipedia editor, was guilty of conduct issues, and impose appropriate sanctions.
 * Remind the WMF (again) that the communities should have a greater role in the decision to roll out software.
 * Ask the WMF to establish a formal volunteer test role, independent of the developers, to identify software issues prior to rollout and submit Bugzilla reports directly, reporting directly to WMF.
 * Make any other necessary recommendations to avoid another Visual Editor situation.

Statement by Andrew Gray
I would agree with the concerns raised above about the RFC (edit - and entirely with WJBscribe's below). I don't believe anyone acted other than in the best of faith, but I am concerned about the low level of activity involved - it looks like around seventy users participated - and feel that this may indicate it does not reflect a true consensus. (Confession: I forgot to comment, partly because I only noticed it was going on in passing and foolishly didn't realise it was likely to lead to a conclusion...).

It seems reasonable for Arbcom to leave aside all question of sanctions and simply say "roll back to the status quo of last week, and restart this discussion in a more prominent fashion" - experience shows that a well-argued and well-participated RFC is honoured by all parties even when it involves significant changes to WMF development plans or to longstanding community positions, and any second discussion would inevitably have greater activity and legitimacy whatever it concludes.

That said... whether or not the discussion is reopened, this is also a good time to consider the broader issue. It's generally accepted by the community that we have a rising scale of "importance" for discussions - at the one end, we feel it's inappropriate to tell a thousand editors about a single article content dispute, while at the other, we would consider a discussion of three people insufficient reason to make sweeping site-wide changes. In some cases, for extremely significant discussions, we have used very formal structures such as pre-discussions to establish the question and named panels of users to oversee and interpret the debate.

Much of this system is based on implicit acceptance, shifting standards (many of us can still remember the days when fifty or a hundred users commenting on something was newsworthy!) and a lot of informal practice - there are no clear rules and the relative infrequency of major RFCs mean that individuals organising them tend not to have wide experience of having done so before. With the best will in the world, this can mean very variable levels of promotion and response - and thus percieved legitimacy. A lot of the discussion and concern here is centred around our differing expectations.

If Arbcom chooses to open a case in some way (and I'm not sure it should), it would be good to take the opportunity to endorse some broad principles as to the appropriate way to conduct an RFC affecting issues such as major site-wide operational, interface, or policy changes. A general sense of the minimum standards in terms of duration, publicity, or numbers participating would be helpful to guide the facilitation of future discussions. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) Black Kite
I urge the ArbCom to take this case. Yes, technically the WMF have the final say over the technical aspects of Wikipedia, but when they have repeatedly proved that they (a) their decisions are not fit for purpose (Visual Editor, Echo, AFT and now this) and (b) they are prepared to override the community regardless of the fact that community is what keeps Wikipedia going, including threats - then there needs to be a decision on this.

Statement by DangerousPanda
First, I cannot fathom how the person who "created the offensive code" is even on the list of "involved parties". There are two completely separate issues, and in reality therefore 2 separate cases: I urge ArbCom to take this on as two separate issues - at the same time do not perform RFC on MediaViewer pt2: The Revenge of the Sith. This incident was a mere symptom of something else the panda ₯’  23:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Does the en-wp community have the authority to decide, by consensus, to over-ride WMF implementations. Consequent to this is defining consensus: is it via community discussion (where?), or a mere count of those who voluntarily enabled something.
 * Although the WMF staff member apologized, the chilling effect of "do that again and I will desysop you" is incredibly potent. The behaviour of that specific WMF member, and the community expectation of accountability from anyone with enhanced permissions (no matter how they gained them) needs to be addressed.

Statement by WJBscribe
This case is in seriously jeopardy of becoming "the enwiki community vs the WMF", which (as it appears it will accept the case) ArbCom must not allow it to become. That things have degenerated so far that there now appears to be a battleground developing between the paid staffers who develop the interface and the volunteers who use it is extremely concerning. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this case (there seems to be room for plenty of criticism to round, from the botched closing and implementation of the RfC to Erik Moeller's poor handling of the issue, which was far from eloquent), this underlying issue needs addressing at a high level. VisualEditor, MediaViewer - what next? We have got to find a better way for everyone to work together and I'm far from convinced that a case in front of ArbCom is the way to do it (or even a step in the right direction). WJBscribe (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Wnt (uninvolved)
In essence this is a garden variety edit war. One editor makes a change to Common.js, another reverts it. One says he has consensus (an RFC), the other says he has consensus (reader feedback data). Because of the degree of previous discussion already occurred and the power of some involved, this can be a case for ArbCom; nonetheless the underlying content decision should remain with the community at large. The question then is whether the overall decision about who has the real consensus can be closed with the available data, or if further opportunities for the community to discuss are required to reach consensus. If ArbCom decides to disagree with the WMF, it should not go to the absurd length of trying to sanction WMF employees, because en-WP is just one project. However, a member of ArbCom can repeat the contested edit citing consensus of the other members, which would be a very powerful statement of community unity.

I think some of the recent innovations have been good. But Flow and this media viewer infringe on the idea that the content and presentation of the site are under user control. So long as they are the ones producing the content, Wikipedia editors have the right not to use the media viewer if, in the simplest case, they don't include images in articles. Everything beyond that is refinement. So it should be within the power of the users of a project, such as en.WP, to decide to avoid the media viewer to whatever extent as a local content decision.

Comment by Kelapstick
There is no bright line drawn where the foundation ends, and the community starts. This is obvious because the community is still technically able to edit the MediaWiki interface. We need to know where this line is, not what we can do from a technical perspective, but what we are permitted to do. Is the community permitted to mass opt-out of features the foundation provides after an RfC on the matter? If so what venue do we have to use for this, an RfC and change the code does not work (clearly). The community needs a central point of contact to communicate with the foundation when we don't like something. It is all well and good for us to have an RfC where we decide we don't like the colour of the paint in the kitchen, or the lamp in the living room. After said RfC we need someone, or a group of someones, to communicate our dislike of the lamp and the paint job to the Foundation.

Statement by Wbm1058
In its early years (1789–1803), the Supreme Court of the United States "had little prestige". The 1803 case Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, which we take for granted today. This case should not be viewed in a negative way as "the enwiki community vs the WMF", but as a positive opportunity to establish checks and balances between the community and the "executive branch" of English Wikipedia. If the Arbitration Committee chooses to make this case their "Marbury", they'll have my support. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)