User talk:Coren/Archives/2013/March

Subject–object problem page revisions

Coren: I have taken advantage of the time I have been waiting for your advice to make changes to my proposal for editing the page Subject–object problem. I also have included some comments of my own about how these changes might be received. I hope you will get around to commenting soon. The link is here. Thank you. Brews ohare (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Coren: Although you suggested that I ask about proposed changes before making them, I see that you are too busy to actually implement this suggestion, so I guess I'll proceed without advice on this matter. Brews ohare (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Coren: I have proposed these changes here and here. Brews ohare (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the delay, Brews. I find myself rather swamped with the acclimation to the new job.  :-) I'll take a look and comment on it tomorrow morning (UTC-5). — Coren ^(talk) 00:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. Some comments can be found here. Brews ohare (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There being no discussion on these points, the changes are now implemented. Brews ohare (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Coren.
I've mentioned you here, and up-front apologies if this was out of line. In these situations I would normally start a little well-referenced stub, or at the very least a userspace draft. In this case, while there exists fr:François Vermeille and fr:Discussion:François Vermeille/Suppression, I can't find enough refs to start either of them.
See also this edit about other potential problems.
Meantime, I've inadvertently started some WP:DRAMA about my own RfA, so will be busy with this for a little while.
Hope this helps. Hope I haven't created yet more Teh Dramahz.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

belated ...

but TY for the replies to my questions. — Ched :  ?  06:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Csb-pageincluded

Template:Csb-pageincluded has been nominated for merging with Template:Csb-pageincludes. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Eyesnore (PC) 01:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bots project on wikilabs

Duplicated from Meta. Hi! How can I join it? I would like to move there some tools that I run locally and later tools from my Toolserver account as well (when replication is up). Thanks, --DixonD (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no documentation as of yet (I'm hard at work doing that today), but I'd be glad to set you up and show you around if you reach me by email or (even easier) on IRC. You can find my on #wikimedia-labs as user Coren. — MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 12:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Secret Informers

Wikipedia should not be a Gestapo type state [1]. It should not operate on the word of secret informers and in-camera trials. Who was the informer on User:George Ponderevo or was s/he invented by the Arbcom) and please supply diffs for the supposed serious crimes. Then please tell the project how each Arb voted - or are the Arbs ashamed of their actions?  Giano  13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In case you had not noticed, I am recused on this matter.

My personal opinion is that Malleus tried (and failed) a clean start attempt. It's a little disappointing since he is correct that his original account does carry out of proportion stigma, but it was also unavoidable that he would be recognized since he eventually gravitated back towards the areas where his temper flares up and returned to the same battlegrounds (the first several months of the George account were uneventful and quite under the radar). Had he not attempted to do so covertly and pretend the George account wasn't his, none of this would have happened. — Coren ^(talk) 15:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You really must learn to control that finger Coren. It will get you into trouble very soon.  Giano  19:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Copy write details

I am Will Robson and I own the copyright to the details of Will Robson taken from www.will-robson.com (Willrobs (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)).

On my resignation

I expect that the Committee will eventually make a notice of my departure on some noticeboard soon, although my resignation has been given some hours ago by now.

Being on ArbCom is a thankless job. In theory, they are the group of editors entrusted by the community to do all of the dirty behind the scenes work that the community cannot, or should not, handle. To protect the project from the worst problems; be it intractable disputes, privacy-related matters, or even cases of actually dangerous people trying to do harm to the project or its contributors.

In theory.

I suppose it should come as no surprise that a group that is elected in a political context will eventually evolve(?) to become politicized. That it has become so, however, means that it can no longer do the job it was ostensibly elected for.

What should be healthy debate on how to handle matters has become filibustering and tactical maneuvers to gain the upper hand. What should be a concern for basic fairness and propriety has degenerated into bickering about the "Image" of the committee with little or no concern for the project's fate. Trying our damn best to do the Right Thing has been obsoleted in favour of trying to get reelected.

I knew the committee was ailing when I ran again (it was obvious even from the sidelines). I did not, could not guess how bad a turn it had taken. Despite the valiant efforts of some of its members, the institution is moribund, and cancerous. I have neither the time, the energy, nor the desire to battle with the committee; I ran to help to project, not play politician.

I remain hopeful that the positive forces within the committee might set matters right eventually, but I no longer expect it.

— Coren ^(talk) 22:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The cynical part of me has numerous things to say. The tactful part will just thank you for trying and hope that you aren't so disillusioned that you run completely away. When I saw how badly my campaign of "let's actually try to stick to our own guidelines and policies" went over, I lost a lot of hope.—Kww(talk) 23:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Coren: I voted for you because you were one of the sane arbitrators, who I trusted to know when the right time was to either cuss out the rest of the Arbs for becoming politicized, or step away from the politics. It's been clear to me for a few days now that that's happened, and I knew that you'd see it too.. I'm sorry that your "career" (damn, that's politics) had to end like this, as with the right people I feel the Arbitration Committee could and would be the best thing on Wikipedia. Now all that's left is finding a way to either reform it or disband it in favor of a Jimbocracy (hehe). I thank you for your resignation, not because it's what I wanted, but because it's the only thing left now that will leave the best of Wikipedia at it's heart. I hope you aren't leaving the project forever :) gwickwire^talk_editing 23:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Very sorry to see you resign, but you have to do whats best for you, and that comes before whats best for the pedia.--MONGO 02:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Likewise sorry to see you resign. Best wishes! — madman 03:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your candor and standing up for principle. I hope that your action helps to bring ArbCom towards what you feel it should have been while you were a member. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Coren, I've been so scarce around here due to work, but just saw that you resigned. One of the reasons I pushed so hard for you to run was hoping you could help remove some of the politics in Arb. I trust that most of the Arbs are good people, but the system is flawed enough to bring out the worse in them at times. I completely understand the frustration and just hope whatever you do, you find some peace. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't always agreed with you - at times I've really disagreed with you - but it's a shit job with no thanks, and it takes a fair amount of strength of character to continually dive in. So a tip of the hat for that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Coren, sounds horrible, and I'm sorry it had to come to this. Just one comment though, people brave enough to be reformers often will not want to have their RL identities known. A Wikipedian should be judged on their on-wiki behavior only. I liked Fred Bauder's style of saying very little. A Taoist principle would be that silence will get you in less trouble. Anyway, thank you for your service. B^e——C_ritical 17:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Wowsers, didn't expect this. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Coren, wow! My jaw drops! But thank you so much for the good you have done, and you have my very best wishes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

@Coren: Thank you for your service to the committee and the community.(olive (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC))

• I also wish to join those thanking you regarding your service to the encyclopedia. I have been concerned about the various power institutions here for some time, and your resignation from ArbCom and your candid words regarding it gives me even greater distress for our structure of governance. However, I love your suggestion for "observers" as a possible start of a move towards consensus-based decisions and away from factionalized ones. I would like to propose that such observers have the ear of Jimbo and the WMF in scheduled weekly or bi-weekly meetups. How these observers would be minted could be problematic, but perhaps you would consider becoming one yourself, since your knowledge and integrity are self-evident. Again, many thanks for your time and energy spent on Wikipedia to date, and my very best wishes to you always, whatever you do. Jusdafax 18:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

'

Forward

Hi Coren: If you were to name say three reforms or principles for future operation, what would they be? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

For the committee, you mean? I'd need to give this some thought; it's much easier to see the problem than guess at a solution. And, in this case, the root problem may well be an unavoidable consequence of the political nature of electing members – but I'd be hard-pressed to find an alternative.

The sad thing, of course, is that there is nothing wrong with the basic operation of the Committee when its members actually work towards the right objective – this is what I saw in 2009-2010 for instance. Part of the difficulty stems from the fact that some of mechanisms in place that make it work right fail in catastrophic ways when things go wrong.

A random idea that, I think, might have prevented the worst of what happened in the past 6-8 month or so might be "observers"; people picked to see what the committee does but who do not interact with it nor participate in its deliberations. Give them the power to raise issues to the community that the committee seem to be mishandling, or internal violations of policies. Not to opine, but to give reports (possibly redacted) like "Matter X is being discussed in view of Y kind of evidence; arguments have been made that W to justify acting/not acting". Rough idea, is all; dunno how well that'd work in practice but it would prevent misusing our internal processes. — Coren ^(talk) 23:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If you think of anything else committee or not, your experience is useful. I think your "ombudspersons" or "board of overseers/auditors" role is interesting. Followup: What mechanisms, specifically are you referring to when you say they work right (except when the fail)? And how do they fail? (As you see it). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

List confidentiality is one, as is the use of internal deliberation when deciding whether to act. When the objective is to serve the project, they are useful and necessary (for instance, much of the debate could not be held in public because it really does help to be able to be candid). The problem is that if what's being discussed is not beneficial for the project, then that same protection becomes an obstacle to accountability. — Coren ^(talk) 00:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah. So perhaps some sort of parliamentary procedure for internal debate might be useful. Like what is germane and the like -- to improve focus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Coren, while arb and arb-elect, you and I (I think one of us suggested it, the other moved on it) proposed a Review board in 2008, for exactly these reasons (Draft Explanation), which was stripped by the community at that time, of its proposed role of overseeing behavior of Arbitrators and the committee's private activities and dialogs. It was neutered (to be brutally direct) and left as WP:AUSC - a subcommittee of arbcom rather than its overseer and community ensurer of best conduct, and left to watch trusted tool use only. Even as arbs ourselves, we felt this kind of possible future was unacceptable, and no scope should be allowed for AC to have any way to become anything but more neutral, more fair, professional, competent, project focused, and insightful over time - and to arrange for independent trusted eyeballs to help it remain so. A community or body that truly wants that kind of future would make it so. I still think that we missed an opportunity at the time. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there are so few people as neutral, fair, professional, competent, project focused, and insightful as you were. Wherever would we look for leadership, other than to you? Oh please come back, and restore the Golden Era. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I can understand it hurts you to see the disreputable FT2 trying to blow himself up into a wise tribal elder (especially doing it on Coren's page, with Coren being pretty much an actual wise tribal elder), but you should know sarcasm doesn't work on the internet. I've already got an e-mail from a worried user asking if I thought you might be a secret drinker. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC).

Floquenbeam, while you are up, could you grab me a beer, please. Coren/FT2, I think that one layer of bureaucracy is sufficient. The best way to ensure ethical behavior by arbitrators is for business to be conducted in public for all to see. 99% of dispute resolution isn't, or shouldn't be, confidential. Whatever truly needs to be confidential--one case comes to mind of an admin suffering mental illness that impacted his performance--should be handled by WMF legal staff. They have legal protections of privilege that we volunteers do not, and are much better able to satisfy legal concerns and bring in the authorities if interventions are needed. Sensitive issues should be handled by trained professionals. Our ArbCom should focus on intractable disputes and behavioral issues such as use of admin tools. We have plenty of those; witness the lengthy delays in resolving cases. Jehochman ^Talk 19:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Going back to Coren's idea of independent observers on the committee's mailing list, I think they would be useful in pulling the committee back to business when it strayed into territory that others could handle (or issues that the list should not be used for) or started handling things in private that were best discussed in public. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

but would Coren have behaved differently if he had been independently observed? It seems to me that the committee were persuaded against their better judgement to jump over a precipice. In such a situation, a charismatic would have hypnotised the observers into jumping to their doom along with the members.  Giano  20:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about any particular issue, but in general. When the mailing list was last leaked, it was clear that a huge percentage of the committee's time was spent dealing with issues it was not elected to deal with, sometimes at great length. While that happened, cases stood unresolved for weeks or months with all the bad feeling that entails. So having independent observers, or clerks (but people truly independent and not scared to speak up) would have been very useful in reminding the committee to leave some of these issues to others. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Coren, I'm very sincerely interested in seeing if we can make something better out of this situation, and I would very much appreciate it if you would be willing to clarify a couple of things to which you referred in your resignation. I realize that I'm asking about some things that might be considered private matters, but given what you have already said, it seems to me that the cat is already out of the bag.
  • You describe the situation as politicized. To me, that word implies either that there are factions, or that it is each Arb for him or herself. If there are factions on the Committee, what are they? What are the issues that separate one faction from another? Who is in each faction?
  • Are there particular issues or cases in which concerns about getting re-elected, or protecting the Committee's image, have gotten in the way of arriving at a proper decision? How specifically did these concerns get in the way?
• Again, I think the cat is already out of the bag, so in my opinion you might as well name names, however impolitic that may be. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that stuff will come out sooner or later. Without divulging confidential stuff, can you provide your impressions of what's going on politically and how it could be made better? Jehochman ^Talk 22:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I've already skirted the limits of propriety, so I'll not be discussing any specific incident. No, there aren't "factions", at least not in the way most people would mean (i.e. groups of people who stand together), but the committee is definitely factious. Having different approaches is okay and used to work very well even if it sometimes led to robust debate (it's no secret that Brad, for instance, is a strong proponent of leniency and the soft touch while I was more the dura lex sed lex kinda arb) because it was about the best thing for the project.

What I mean by "politicized" was that decisions are not being argued around "what is best for the project" but "what will make [the committee] look good". Add to that stonewalling, filibustering, and downright bullying from those who aren't getting their way – to the point of having arbitrators being... creative... with ethics in order to get the upper hand – and you end up with an toxic environment that can't possibly result in good decisions. When I noticed that my own behaviour had started to be affected negatively, I decided to bail. I'm entirely willing to take a great deal of abuse and headaches if the objective is to fight alongside the committee for the project, not to fight against the committee. — Coren ^(talk) 23:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's bad to have different approaches if people can respect each other. One cure would be to have the discussion in the open for all to see. That would tend to moderate some of the harshness. It would also provide an opportunity for outside feedback, which is quite useful for resolving disputes. Everybody means well, but the dynamic of the secret mailing list is powerful, and pushes things in a very bad direction. Jehochman ^Talk 00:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, I have come to this late as my free time has been fragmented and I have restricted myself to stress-relieving/fun bits of wikipedia for the past while. I am warming to the idea of an independent observer who while bound to secrecy can report on the appropriateness/inappropriateness of content, though can see problems with it as well. There is just stuff that can't be discussed openly. When we post and discuss more openly, folks complain were a Divided Committee etc. I really don't have a problem with that though. I obviously haven't been privy to the past few months but we have a range of opinions and for the most part work stuff out. It is tough though and oftentimes there is no clear cut answer and whatever happens, you can be sure you end up copping alot of flack.

Coren, you're right about different values - if you have the inclination I strongly recommend involving yourself in some content-work just to get a different perspective (We've disagreed on things in the past and I have felt that our respective experiences have had a role in that). Review at Peer Review, GAN, FAC whatever. I could do with more co-judges at the Core Contest (once I sort out funding for prizes!) or whatever. I think you'll find some more enthusiasm after that. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Jehochman. I'm trying to parse out the difference between quitting the Committee simply because you, Coren, felt that you were failing to persuade other members to agree with you, and quitting because of "downright bullying" and members "being... creative... with ethics". If those latter things are going on, you really owe it to the community to stop worrying about propriety and be specific. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Tryptofish. Coren, if you think you were bullied or mistreated by an arbitrator, you need to give details to the community. If you need permission to disclose the applicable mailing list threads, you can obtain it by e-mailing the arbitrators involved. If you were not, then in my view you must also say as much. AGK [•] 17:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

....actually that is a view I'd like clarified as well, Coren. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in dragging any specific arbitrators through the mud on public fora; the failure is systemic, not individual (that those events occurred without most other arbitrators reacting gives me little confidence that the matter will be addressed at all, let alone fixed). If you really don't see what I'm talking about, email me. — Coren ^(talk) 19:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me to be unlikely that the Committee as a whole (minus Coren) would really collaborate on bullying or ethical lapses. I don't doubt that there could be difficult and heated disagreements, and that individual members might say some heated things, and Coren could reasonably feel fed up with encountering that. But, if Coren sees the situation as one where he would rather not drag "any specific arbitrators through the mud" in public, I'm coming to the conclusion that there really isn't a systemic problem that would require community intervention. Maybe just a little thought amongst Committee membership about better collaboration, but nothing more. Coren, if I'm off-base here, then please recognize that that is the picture given by your own reluctance to make your accusations specific, in public. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not at all unlikely. The committee has showed itself very vulnerable to group-think in many of its incarnations. Bullying by staying silent is the most common form, and often the committee has acted as an enabler for other bullies - and to some extent continues to do so, I have just emailed an arbitrator over a particularly egregious example. This is a systemic problem indeed, and the nature of the committee, and the principles, policies and processes by which it operates in many ways exacerbate it. Rich Farmbrough, 05:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

Image Uploading & "Non-free use rationale biog"

(Discussion continued from here.)

Thanks again for the quick answers. How do I go about uploading an image exactly? At what point does the template you mentioned come into play? If I use the Image Upload Wizard (and this is the only way to upload an image?), I need to fill out most of the information mentioned in the template you mentioned anyway. PZAJ (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've honestly not kept up with the changes to the upload process that have taken place in the past few years; I expect that said Wizard should make matters fairly clear (that was, after all, its objective). I'm sure that if you fill out the forms with as much information as possible, at the very least someone with more familiarity with the new interface will contact you if there is something missing or unclear. — Coren ^(talk) 17:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Response to blame

In my response to blame that text on newly created article Tripura Board of Secondary Education has been copied :-
The information available on the reference website is in public domain and it is maintained by Government of Tripura. All the information can also be achieved under Right to Information Act. So there is no violation of copy right issues as far as textual content of the article is considered. While the logo of the Board used may be challenged. --Wiki.Gunjan (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

References to your ArbCom resignation statement

As a courtesy I should inform you that I referenced your statement twice today: at Jimbo's talk page where I call for new ArbCom elections across the board, and at an informal Rfc for Will Beback. Thanks again for your outstanding candor and integrity! Jusdafax 06:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

We have not necessarily agreed on some circumstances in the past. However, to some of your points, I find that by the time disputes reach Arbcom, Occam's razor is a code word for guilty until proven, well, no one is ever proven innocent. Arbcom desperately needs a new paradigm for dispute resolution. I hope you are able to accomplish more as an agent of change from the outside. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As a followup, Jimmy did not see fit to reply to my proposal. Like the above editor, I hope that you will use your experiences in a way that will allow other Wikipedians to grasp the larger issues at stake regarding ArbCom. Jusdafax 20:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Jamaica external link

I am Will Robson and I own the copyright to the details of Will Robson taken from www.will-robson.com (Willrobs (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrobs (talk • contribs)