Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2013-03-18. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Another arbitrator resigns; Norton case closes (3,850 bytes · 💬)

Based on what I read in this Signpost (and earlier ones) my opinion is that the Arbitration Committee is in a severe crisis. Under these circumstances, does the ArbCom still has the confidence of the community? Two Arbitrators gone, one acting extremely strange. Not good, not good. The Banner talk 11:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that the AUSC section be modified to include that the WMF have stepped in to prevent non-admins being appointed, despite a non-admin having previously been appointed to AUSC and despite the declared preference of several arbitrators to include non-admins on AUSC if a qualified candidate is available. EdChem (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt whether all the participants in that discussion, which at this point is still ongoing, would agree with that characterization, but anyone who wants minute-by-minute updates can always check the noticeboard talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Amendment Request: Monty Hall problem: I think the clarification request regarding editing the "log of blocks, bans, and sanctions" page is unrelated to the Monty Hall amendment. Was something inadvertently pasted under the wrong bullet?
- I have amended the description. The request is somewhat puzzling however, as it lists "Remedy 3" as the clause "to which an amendment is requested". Remedy 3 provides for a named editor to be "restricted to 1RR (one revert per day, unless reverting vandalism) on the Monty Hall article for a period of one year". Since the restriction was passed on March 25, 2011, it seems this restriction has long expired. However, the only remedy under discussion seems to be the discretionary sanctions. —Neotarf (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  - Thanks. I had noticed the inconsistency in the request as well. I assume it was a simple clerical error, and that the requester meant to cite Remedy 5. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I am puzzled why certain people who seem to object to virtually every established process and authority level from the WMF on down remain with the project. It seems that either they must be deeply, passionately committed to the project while despising virtually the entire community, or else they are just addicted to stirring up trouble and can't abide not being noticed. Powers ^T 14:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- There are members of this project who have no desire to help produce, improve, and curate our content, and are only here for the perpetual and relentless drama. For them, process, decisions, and political power within Wikipedia are the primary purpose for the existence of Wikipedia. The fact that two Arbitrators have resigned within a week over the pandering that ArbCom has to do to this group means that a real change in Wikipedia administration must be made. Wer900 • talk 19:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  - Oddly enough, the people I described and the people you described seem to overlap significantly. Powers ^T 14:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Featured content: Wikipedia stays warm (890 bytes · 💬)

Hahc21 and Pine: Would the fact that Futuretrillionaire won an award for bringing Oblivion to FA status warrant inclusion in the write up?

Hm, I think not. The Signpost hasn't pointed out which featured content was created as a part of WikiCup competitions each week and I wouldn't want to start mentioning every bounty or prize that someone could be pursuing. But I think it would make sense to cover major awards like the WikiCup at the time that awards are given. --Pine^✉ 01:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Interview: Meeting in the middle: Wikipedia and libraries (892 bytes · 💬)

Canada’s federal librarians fear being ‘muzzled’ | canada.com, Canada.com, March 15, 2013

—Wavelength (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't get me started on this one. The Interior (Talk) 23:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hear hear. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

News and notes: Resigning arbitrator slams Committee (12,915 bytes · 💬)

"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)

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).

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)

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. Mkdw ^talk 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)

Technology report: Visual Editor "on schedule" for July rollout (1,947 bytes · 💬)

I may be missing it somewhere (entirely possible), but was the recent conversion to Lua discussed in an issue? I've been seeing various templates being converted over the last week or two. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, last week for the global implementation, and 18 Feb for the first 20 wikis. Much more implementation info at mw:Lua — billinghurst sDrewth 10:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

We also published two blog posts about the Lua deployment on the Wikimedia Blog: post 1, more technical; post 2, more general audience. You can also read some good coverage of Lua on Wired here, on Venture Beat here, and on The H Open here. We keep press clippings up-to-date on the Meta Press Clippings page here. Matthew (WMF) 17:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Making music with WikiProject Composers (4,924 bytes · 💬)

The RfC linked to above, called for by members of WikiProject Composers, concluded that:

WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.
[...]
Infoboxes are not to be added nor removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive.

Yet members of the project, including some interviewed above, persist in removing infoboxes from articles about composers on sight, and without debate, giving WP:COMPOSERS as a justification. We thus have a small number of editors, operating as a team, to override wider community consensus. Their response to this being pointed out often comprises ad hominem attacks; and article talk page debates are often the subject of their partisan canvassing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

We also have a small number of editors, operating as a team, who persist on adding infoboxes to articles on sight, and without debate, overriding wider consensus. They (or, rather, one of them in particular) exhibit a lack of courtesy and communication skill in debates. What's your point? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there's an infobox tag-team of about half a dozen users who think they represent the "community". Mabbett's a notorious troll. He's been banned twice, each time for a year, by ArbCom. Ironically, I've been told it was only the limitations of the computer software which meant that his second ban wasn't permanent. Now we have to put up with his obnoxious POV-pushing again and again all over Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. 1 one-year Arbcom ban + 1 one-year Arbcom ban + banned from FA of the day [4] = troll. QED. --Folantin (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The main concern is not the actual box but the amount of new editors that get bitten over this. We have had countless new editors inquire at the various help desk(s) as to why they cant edit theses pages without asking permission from the project first. Reverting editions multiple times with edit summaries that say nothing but link to WP:COMPOSERS are confusing to new editors and gives the impression there edits are not welcomed. A proper essay that is inline with the community policy, that is not contradictory and does not tell editors they must seek consensus from the project before editing a particular article may help avoid so many conflicts. Hard to recruit new editors to any project if there first encounter is a negative one. Moxy (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you give three or four examples of these "countless" new editors who have been bitten? I searched the archives of the regular help desk, the new editors' help desk, and the Teahouse and couldn't find anything. Voceditenore (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like those "countless editors" are purely rhetorical. Maybe they can't be counted because they don't exist.--Folantin (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The Visual arts project stands shoulder to shoulder with the music project on infoboxes (in most cases of its own articles, not project-wide of course), indeed that is where the front line tends to be nowadays. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That's sweet, but as the RfC referred to above made clear, carries no more weight than any other arbitrary bunch of editors expressing their shared personal opinions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)