The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


News and notes

Resigning arbitrator slams Committee

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Tony1, Neotarf, and The ed17

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.

 — Coren

Just two months into his second term as an arbitrator on the English Wikipedia, Coren resigned from the Committee with a blistering attack on his fellow arbitrators. In a strongly worded statement posted both on his talk page and the arbitration noticeboard, he claimed that ArbCom has become politicised to the extent that "it can no longer do the job it was ostensibly elected for". Coren accused arbitrators of "filibustering and tactical maneuvers to gain the upper hand" and of "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", he charged, "has been obsoleted in favour of trying to get reelected."

Arbitrator Worm That Turned answered Coren's claims, writing on the ArbCom noticeboard: "Personally, I find the statement from Coren to be rather unfair, ... I do give a damn what the community thinks. I consider the repercussions carefully and try to minimise the controversy surrounding events. I also care about the image that the committee portrays, as without the community's respect, the committee is nothing. I'm sure it's not only me that Coren's statement is reflecting, if it was I would be roundly ignored, but I believe I'm the most vocal about it. The leap that I cannot accept is that I'm doing this to be re-elected. ... I see no reason why we cannot do the right thing AND keep the community on side. If that's playing politics, then so be it."

Coren (Marc André Pelletier) is no newcomer to either the English Wikipedia or the Wikimedia movement as a whole. He served on the Arbitration Committee from 2009 to 2011, and was elected to a second term starting January 2013. Had he stayed on, his total service would have amounted to five years. In 2011, he ran for election to the WMF's Board of Trustees. On 25 February 2013, Coren took up a 12-month contract with the Foundation, joining the Engineering and Product Development Team; his primary focus will be to assist community developers to leverage the new Wikimedia Labs infrastructure for their tools, especially applications that are migrating from the toolserver.

Asked about the future of the Arbitration Committee on his talk page, Coren stated, "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." He then delivered a harsh accusation against the current Committee: "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".

The Signpost asked Coren to explain where he saw a conflict between caring about the image of the Committee and doing the best for the project.


The scales of justice, the centrepiece of the ArbCom logo

Coren did not respond to the Signpost's subsequent request to clarify what he meant by "breaking rules", or which cases involved whining and yelling.

Hersfold, who resigned from ArbCom the week before, echoed Coren's criticisms in general terms: "Unfortunately, I was hoping [that Coren would] be one of the ones to lead the charge against such politicization ... I noticed a steadily increasing emphasis from several arbitrators on avoiding actions that would look bad for the Committee's image or otherwise cause undue amounts of drama". When we invited him to be more specific, Hersfold told the Signpost, "I have no further comment."

Arbitrator AGK took strong exception to Coren's statements: "I consider Coren's resignation to be the rankest drama-mongering. ... throwing the toys from the pram because the community has moved on and the arbitrators who now staff the committee were not quite willing to go along with his extreme views on running ArbCom."

Invited to explain his views further, AGK told the Signpost:


Chapters association elects new chair

Markus Glaser, pictured here at Wikimania 2012, has been elected as the chapters association's new chair.

Markus Glaser has been elected as the new chair of the chapters association. He replaces Ashley Van Haeften (Fæ), who had faced controversy after his unopposed election as chair with little substantive discussion during Wikimania 2012. Van Haeften attempted to address these concerns before the election:


In the election, Glaser beat the English Wikipedia's Kirill Lokshin and Lorenzo Losa, who started as an editor on the Italian Wikipedia, although that "now takes only a small part of [his] Wikimedia-related time." Glaser, who began as a developer and came to the association as the representative of Wikimedia Germany, downplayed the powers he would have as chair, stating that he would favor forming an executive committee to make major decisions. He believes that the committee should:


The troubled history of the chapters association was covered by the Signpost in June 2012 and in brief updates since then, such as February 2013. More information is available on Meta—the coordinating website for the Wikimedia movement—under the proposed name of the organization – "Wikimedia Chapters Association"; however, the Foundation has declined to recognize that name on the basis that the inclusion of Wikimedia is inconsistent with its trademark policy. The next meeting of the association will be in April, at the annual Wikimedia Conference in Milan, Italy.

In brief

← Previous "News and notes"
Next "News and notes" →
S
In this issue
18 March 2013 (all comments)
  • News and notes
  • WikiProject report
  • Interview
  • Featured content
  • Arbitration report
  • Technology report
    • + Add a comment

    Discuss this story

    These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

    "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)[reply]


    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).[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    "Coren (Marc André Pelletier)"...third paragraph, first sentence...did Signpost just "out" a user? — Maile (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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).[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Why, will you sanction him? Don't be so pompous - David Gerard (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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).[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Here it is in context: [3]. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    What do you think of The Signpost? Share your feedback.

















    Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-03-18/News_and_notes