Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-03-18/News and notes
Discuss this story
"Trying our damn best to do the Right Thing," he charged, "has been obsoleted in favour of trying to get reelected." Well, it is a system that selects for politicians above all. It's been that way for quite a while. Certainly since the 2010 intake and before - it's unclear to me how Coren failed to realise this until 2013 - David Gerard (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Coren is perfectly correct, and so is WormThatTurned. The committee has improved considerably with new blood, but there are still problems with the binary way that cases are taken, the lack of imagination, the unwillingness to admit mistakes, the apparent lack of desire to move forward. I firmly believe that there is potential for the committee to continue to move forward and become a more positive force in the community. It would be a good step forward if those who have abused their checkuser privileges would admit it and apologise. Rich Farmbrough, 07:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC).
The community is at odds with each other at times. That is the way of the world. I don't suppose it helped at all for Coren to be attacked on Jimbo's talk page in a manner that appeared to be drama mongering itself. But then without the drama what would we have to actually write about....what...content you say? What a novel idea (sarcasm intended).--Amadscientist (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Four years ago I resigned as an Arbcom clerk because of deep unhappiness with something that went on within Arbcom. I quietly announced my resignation and said no more. I have never discussed my reasons with anyone, inside or outside Arbcom since. I've always been glad for that decision - when you leave there is a rush of emotion. But when you wait a few months, you realise there is sometimes more harm than good in a resignation declaration such as Coren's. Not passing judgment on Coren, but just suggesting to anyone interested, that there can be great value in walking away and reflecting before saying anything. Manning (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- And for you that was the right thing to do, but then I suppose you weren't already being hounded and publicly humiliated for no good reason. I am sure Coren was under immense pressure from many sides and frankly I don't think he did anything wrong. I think what he did was not the best way to go out...but it was what he decided to do.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hounded? Publicly humiliated? Not exactly. Called out for not resigning when he went on the WMF payroll? There ya go. The resignation was the right thing to do, on the last day of the previous month, without drama or a big fuss. Simple. It should have been automatic the same way that an earlier ArbCommer promptly and intelligently resigned his seat when he went on the WMF payroll. Such an action would have helped to further establish a very healthy precedent. The Foundation is the Foundation, the community is the community, and ArbCom is the elected quasi-legal disciplinary arm of the community. There should be a wall between the two, not cross-pollination of cadres and the mixing of institutional agendas. It's fine if one wants to work for the WMF, but that should necessarily imply prompt resignation at ArbCom. Carrite (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- No....exactly. And it was clearly established by WMF that Coren was not an employee but contracted for some temp work.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Employment is employment, regardless of the tax status or phrasing of the employment contract. It's all about potential financial conflict of interest, be it subtle or overt. There needs to be a wall. There wasn't. Fixed now, fortunately. Carrite (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- No....exactly. And it was clearly established by WMF that Coren was not an employee but contracted for some temp work.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hounded? Publicly humiliated? Not exactly. Called out for not resigning when he went on the WMF payroll? There ya go. The resignation was the right thing to do, on the last day of the previous month, without drama or a big fuss. Simple. It should have been automatic the same way that an earlier ArbCommer promptly and intelligently resigned his seat when he went on the WMF payroll. Such an action would have helped to further establish a very healthy precedent. The Foundation is the Foundation, the community is the community, and ArbCom is the elected quasi-legal disciplinary arm of the community. There should be a wall between the two, not cross-pollination of cadres and the mixing of institutional agendas. It's fine if one wants to work for the WMF, but that should necessarily imply prompt resignation at ArbCom. Carrite (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee should start by ending its culture of secrecy and reliance on off-wiki communication for all but the most sensitive of cases. The Signpost should not have had to (futilely) request a clarification from Coren. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
"Coren (Marc André Pelletier)"...third paragraph, first sentence...did Signpost just "out" a user? — Maile (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, Marc's real name has been public for some time. It was most recently linked on both his personal user page and on his WMF user page, but it has been known at least as far back as 2009, and most notably in the 2011 board election, which we've linked in that same paragraph. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- And we had no choice, since one of his fellow arbs provided an on-the-record quote using "Marc". Tony (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is a fairly common trope, and should really be deprecated when used as a rhetorical device. The implication of this familiarity is that the speaker has a personal relationship, and understands why So-and-so feels this way, poor dear - or conversely that the speaker is privy to additional valid reasons that justify apparently bad conduct they are not at liberty to disclose. In either case the speaker should either say so explicitly or remain silent. Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC).
- In actuality, I (like my colleagues) was in the habit of referring to Coren by his forename because that is how he signs his e-mails. I also called him by his forename, not his username, because that is how the questions I was given by the signpost referred to Coren. They asked "is Marc correct when he says X", so I answered "Marc is correct when he says X". Rich, I suggest that you try not to make that sort of subversive, damaging conjecture in future. AGK [•] 18:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why, will you sanction him? Don't be so pompous - David Gerard (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I do not intend to try to have Rich sanctioned, and am puzzled as to how you came to that conclusion. AGK [•] 20:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Rich, the "fairly common trope" jibe is beneath your dignity. Please don't try to see conspiracy theories where none exist. Tony (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see that there is any relation to conspiracy. It's just a thing that people do. Rich Farmbrough, 05:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC).
- I don't see that there is any relation to conspiracy. It's just a thing that people do. Rich Farmbrough, 05:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC).
- Rich, the "fairly common trope" jibe is beneath your dignity. Please don't try to see conspiracy theories where none exist. Tony (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I do not intend to try to have Rich sanctioned, and am puzzled as to how you came to that conclusion. AGK [•] 20:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why, will you sanction him? Don't be so pompous - David Gerard (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- In actuality, I (like my colleagues) was in the habit of referring to Coren by his forename because that is how he signs his e-mails. I also called him by his forename, not his username, because that is how the questions I was given by the signpost referred to Coren. They asked "is Marc correct when he says X", so I answered "Marc is correct when he says X". Rich, I suggest that you try not to make that sort of subversive, damaging conjecture in future. AGK [•] 18:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is a fairly common trope, and should really be deprecated when used as a rhetorical device. The implication of this familiarity is that the speaker has a personal relationship, and understands why So-and-so feels this way, poor dear - or conversely that the speaker is privy to additional valid reasons that justify apparently bad conduct they are not at liberty to disclose. In either case the speaker should either say so explicitly or remain silent. Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC).
- And we had no choice, since one of his fellow arbs provided an on-the-record quote using "Marc". Tony (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
May be it is time for the community to look at revamping ArbCom. We are an organization that believes "with enough eyes all bugs are shallow", one that requires a super majority for major decisions. I do not think we should allow a small group to go behind closed doors and make critical decisions for the community as a whole based on half of this group plus one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- There's certainly an argument for removing the "star chamber" layer and going back to allowing the constitutional monarch to make decisions on these kinds of things instead. I wonder if that's what people would prefer? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- No what I am proposing is that the community weight in on these discussions and have the final say. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- There's certainly an argument for removing the "star chamber" layer and going back to allowing the constitutional monarch to make decisions on these kinds of things instead. I wonder if that's what people would prefer? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I too strongly feel the need for more transparency in the discussions that ArbCom holds in making a decision that affects the community as a whole. Naturally there is a need for discretion in some of their tasks, but it seems paramount that decisions which have widespread consequences should have the entire history of the debate recorded and made public to see the process in which the decision was ultimately made. Mkdwtalk 00:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I echo the call for transparency in the decision-making process at ArbCom. The current process resembles a town council that is in perpetual "Executive Session," without public witness or scrutiny. It is no way to build community support. Carrite (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I also request that Arbcom stop with the closed door sessions. If you have to do things in secrecy it should ONLY be done for the privacy of the individual. If you don't care what the community thinks...then we need to dismantle the current system. But I actually support the Arbitration Committee....but no one is above our policies and doing things behind closed doors is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Not one bit.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I remembered Coren's name when I started reading this article. I wondered why. I looked up his name on my talk page history and found his interaction with me from 2009. He abused his power, was threatening, and was totally rude. The fact that I remembered his name at all indicates to me how abusive he was. So if he acts the same way now in 2013 I am glad he is no longer on the Arbitration Committee. Many admins, all the way up to arbitrators, abuse their power. For more info see User:Timeshifter/Unchecked admin misconduct. If Coren is going to be on a 1-year contract working for the Foundation, then I fear an even wider gulf between the Foundation, volunteer developers, and Wikipedia editors. Especially from what I read about the tension between people using the Toolserver and Wikimedia Labs. We need more cooperative people as board members and staff. And Meta-Wiki needs to be moved to the Commons to encourage further genuine cooperation and interaction. This is because far more people worldwide use the Commons versus Meta-Wiki. They check their Commons watchlist fairly often. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Abrupt? Possibly. Abusive. Not even. [1] [2] Those are playful compared to some posts I have seen from others. Your comment fails on a number of levels.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Here it is in context: [3]. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Over time ArbCom has probably made most of the available mistakes, of which bottling it is one. Appeasement is another. To call its internal discussion "robust" is to be euphemistic. I didn't overlap with Coren to a serious extent, but he has struck me in the past as over-wound. It sounds to me like more like pique than principle. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
← Back to News and notes