Coren's Off-Wiki Activities, Would you have voted for him if...? Options

[One]

The direction of this conversation seems strange to me. Elections don't come with warranties. The opportunity for vetting is well passed. No refunds.

Barring acts of God (or Fitzgerald), the elected will get to serve out their mandate. In any event, Coren got the shortest possible commission. If the community doesn't like him, they're free to vote him out this year (assuming he even runs).

It's possible that if people had known, he would have attracted 17 more oppose votes. That would have been enough to put SirFozzie on ArbCom (assuming Jimbo didn't change his picks), but it's not really worth thinking about. Various disclosures could have altered other votes; it's not possible or productive to unwind them.

This post has been edited by One: Mon 8th June 2009, 3:07am

[Somey]

It's possible that if people had known, he would have attracted 17 more oppose votes. That would have been enough to put SirFozzie on ArbCom (assuming Jimbo didn't change his picks), but it's not really worth thinking about. Various disclosures could have altered other votes; it's not possible or productive to unwind them.

Not even theoretically possible?

Oh well, as long as we can still put it on our Annual Top Ten List, that's all that really matters.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

the set of things that a voter might actually vote against something for is NOT equivalent to the set of things that a voter should consider a reason to vote against something (and therefore that it is wrong to "lie by omission" about). Thus, to support the claim that something "should" have been disclosed, merely claiming that it is in the first of the two sets is insufficient.

"Should" according to who? If the candidates are deciding how people "should" make their decisions, then what you have isn't an "election".

But then, we always knew arbcom was a game of fantasy election, didn't we?

[Random832]

Please respect that, and dont tell people what they should think/believe.

Um, I didn't say anything about whether, in actual fact, this is something that people shouldn't care about. My only point was that "some people might not have voted for him for this" isn't sufficient. If it helps, forget about the discrimination and focus on the ham salad.

"Should" according to who? If the candidates are deciding how people "should" make their decisions, then what you have isn't an "election".

My point was that such things EXIST. Why can't we have this discussion right now?

You can't say "disclose everything" or you'll get a ridiculously verbose info-dump. So at some point SOMEONE has to decide what to disclose.

This post has been edited by Random832: Mon 8th June 2009, 1:58pm

[Kato]

Hmm. My view would be that it is not up to you to decide if this is important to potential voters, I think potential voters should be allowed to make up their own mind as to if providing tech. sup. for any such site is relevant.
Or not.

Suppose some potential voter would have voted against him on the basis that he had ham salad for lunch on June 18, 1997. There are lots of "legitimate" reasons to do so - perhaps someone is opposed to eating meat - or to "salads" that don't contain lettuce. Should he have anticipated this objection? Should he have accomodated it? At some point you're telling your entire life's story and being too verbose becomes a legitimate objection.

Or, to take a different angle on it - some candidates might not reveal their race / gender / religion / sexual orientation. Now, surely even as progressive as Wikipedia is, there's at least some chance that there exists at least one voter who would oppose for one of those reasons.

I'm not trying to draw an equivalence between those cases and this specifically, merely pointing out that the set of things that a voter might actually vote against something for is NOT equivalent to the set of things that a voter should consider a reason to vote against something (and therefore that it is wrong to "lie by omission" about). Thus, to support the claim that something "should" have been disclosed, merely claiming that it is in the first of the two sets is insufficient.

Look, say Coren was a School Teacher. No one would fire Coren over matters of race / gender / religion / sexual orientation, not least because that is illegal. Let alone fire him based on whether he ate a ham salad for lunch on June 18, 1997.

If it was found that he was managing that website, he could and probably would be fired from his job.

One would expect that Arbitrators of a vast educational site like Wikipedia would be people whose standards were such that they didn't have other interests which would get them fired from their respectable normal job in the real world.

Is that asking too much?

And I repeat what I said earlier, even if you disagree with the above, you have to admit that Coren nominating himself with that skeleton lurking in the cupboard, after the FT2 business, shows very poor judgement. Which makes him a poor candidate to arbitrate online disputes anyway.

[Obesity]

I assumed it well known, even when Coren was running, that his top WP interest was zoophilia, but I guess these kids were not paying attention.

[One]

It's possible that if people had known, he would have attracted 17 more oppose votes. That would have been enough to put SirFozzie on ArbCom (assuming Jimbo didn't change his picks), but it's not really worth thinking about. Various disclosures could have altered other votes; it's not possible or productive to unwind them.

Not even theoretically possible?

Honestly, it's peculiar that ten arbitrators were seated. Very few people thought that Jimbo would dig so deep, and Coren didn't attract the kind of strategic opposition fight that some of those above him did. If people had known that so many would be seated, might it have turned out differently? Possibly. Or consider how ArbCom was expanded to 18 seats, which no one seems to have requested. Then, peculiarly, only 17 of those seats were filled. "Deskana is resigning his seat. I am not filling that seat right now..."

If people had known these things, it might have turned out quite differently, and the terms of the election are at least as important as anything Coren does in his spare time.

[Grep]

If people had known these things, it might have turned out quite differently, and the terms of the election are at least as important as anything Coren does in his spare time.

I disagree. What is important is what happens in the real world. In that world, some of the readers and editors of Wikipedia are children, who deserve and need protection, and where someone professing Coren's connections would probably find difficulty getting a job involving influence and authority over minors. What happens on Wikipedia is of importance precisely to the extent that it affects what happens in the real world.

This post has been edited by Grep: Mon 8th June 2009, 5:26pm

[One]

If people had known these things, it might have turned out quite differently, and the terms of the election are at least as important as anything Coren does in his spare time.

I disagree. What is important is what happens in the real world. In that world, some of the readers and editors of Wikipedia are children, who deserve and need protection, and where someone professing Coren's connections would probably find difficulty getting a job involving influence and authority over minors. What happens on Wikipedia is of importance precisely to the extent that it affects what happens in the real world.

Who are you disagreeing with? My only point is that it's not possible to unwind the election results because so many arbitrary factors went into it. The terms of the elections were certainly at least as important for shaping that election.

[Peter Damian]

I reviewed all his 37 edits to the article. Nearly all are reversions of crude vandalism of the 'Kyle does it with newts' variety.

But there is a theme of reverting all edits claiming that Islam abhors bestiality, and replacing them with much watered-down claims, or statements that Islam might even take a benign view of it.

He removes "All [[Sunni]] Islamic scholars agree that sexual intercourse with animals is strictly prohibited and unthinkable and is punishable by death. Islam is strict in the matters of sexual relationships and that it may only be between a husband and a wife, and acts such as [[rape]], [[homosexuality]], [[transexuality]] and zoophilia are punishable by death. " with the comment "Conflating with rape is almost certainly not a good idea. Discuss on the talk page first, please."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=156042198

Reverts TO an incredibly POV edit here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=172228475


Replaces the removed statement: "A book "[[Tahrirolvasyleh]]", cited on the Internet, which quotes the [[Shia]] [[Ayatollah Khomeini]] approving of sex with animals under certain conditions, is unconfirmed and possibly a forgery. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...228749807" with the comment 'I doubt you speak for all muslims'


Removes "In [[Islam]] any intercourse with someone other than the wife/husband is explicitly forbidden in the Quran. " with the comment "Please no not replace sourced statements with scripture. " and replaces with "Views of zoophilia's seriousness in [[Islam]] seem to cover a wide spectrum. This may be because it is not explicitly mentioned or prohibited in the [[Qur'an]], or because sex and sexuality were not treated as [[taboo]] in Muslim society to the same degree as in Christianity. Some sources claim that sex with animals is abhorrent, others state that while condemned, it is treated with "relative indulgence" and in a similar category to [[masturbation]] and [[lesbian]]ism "
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=256167351

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Mon 8th June 2009, 9:03pm

[Grep]

If people had known these things, it might have turned out quite differently, and the terms of the election are at least as important as anything Coren does in his spare time.

I disagree. What is important is what happens in the real world. In that world, some of the readers and editors of Wikipedia are children, who deserve and need protection, and where someone professing Coren's connections would probably find difficulty getting a job involving influence and authority over minors. What happens on Wikipedia is of importance precisely to the extent that it affects what happens in the real world.

Who are you disagreeing with? My only point is that it's not possible to unwind the election results because so many arbitrary factors went into it. The terms of the elections were certainly at least as important for shaping that election.

I am disagreeing with the assertion that "the terms of the election" (which are part of the sordid little game that is Wikipedia) "are at least as important as anything Coren does in his spare time" (which happens in the real world).

This post has been edited by Grep: Mon 8th June 2009, 9:10pm

[LessHorrid vanU]

I assumed it well known, even when Coren was running, that his top WP interest was zoophilia, but I guess these kids were not paying attention.

Or even now (except that inconvenient truths are... well, inconvenient). As CHL says below, that people were only dirt digging/carefully reviewing stats on the assumed likely successful candidates - and Jimbo's decision meant that a couple got in without having their resumes parsed.

Somehow, this is Coren's fault for being open about a sensitive subject.

[Random832]

I am disagreeing with the assertion that "the terms of the election" (which are part of the sordid little game that is Wikipedia) "are at least as important as anything Coren does in his spare time" (which happens in the real world).

Right, but what we are engaged in is speculation on what the results of the election would have been if things had gone differently.

[Daniel Brandt]

Coren should identify himself more specifically. I know that he lives in a suburb of Montreal, QC, Canada (probably Terrebonne), he says that he is nearing 40 years old, he writes his name as Marc A. Pelletier or Marc-André Pelletier or Marc Pelletier, and he's been a sysadmin for 20 years.

There are perhaps a dozen namesakes in the Montreal area who could qualify under this description. I need a birthdate and a picture so that these namesakes aren't implicated when Coren takes his rightful place on hivemind.

[One]

Who are you disagreeing with? My only point is that it's not possible to unwind the election results because so many arbitrary factors went into it. The terms of the elections were certainly at least as important for shaping that election.

I am disagreeing with the assertion that "the terms of the election" (which are part of the sordid little game that is Wikipedia) "are at least as important as anything Coren does in his spare time" (which happens in the real world).

I did not mean to claim that Coren's free-time activities are Platonically less important than the election process. I didn't mean to express an opinion on that subject; I apologize for the confusion. My point is that the unforeseen seating process was a much more important factor for shaping the election than almost anything that Coren might have volunteered. He (and SirFozzie, for that matter) would have attracted more votes and scrutiny if it was known he was on the cusp.

Jimbo expressed disdain for "strategic voting," but I think a moving target is much more chaotic and arbitrary than allowing voters to select their least favorite cusp candidates. Of course, non-public voting would solve the entire issue.

This post has been edited by One: Tue 9th June 2009, 5:38am