User talk:Coren/Archives/2011/November

With regards to my request for clarification
I'd like to note that it appears that my request has been "hijacked" to focus on a different question than I asked. I don't use the word "hijack" in a bad faith, I am sure the editors who posed the other questions had good rationale, and I appreciate you and others addressing them, but I'd like to not ethat nobody seems to have answered my original question (where my edits to AE a violation, and was FSP right to threaten me with sanctions?). I hope I won't have to repost my request... (Arbitration/Requests/Clarification). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Update on CSBot?
In the new monthly tradition established by Piotr, I'm checking in. Is there a persistent location where we can meet to discuss, where WMF is represented? A page where all available issues/options/plans can be discussed on separate pages, but are shown on a single page (as done at AfD: page/subpage assemblage)? Or is it a bug at Bugzilla? --Lexein (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at this time. That said, I've just returned from a trip to the Foundation offices with one of my colleagues, and I've taken the time to remind the good people at the office about this.  They tend to be dreadfully overworked, but I was promised an update shortly and we can take it from there.  My impression is that the talks with Google are ongoing but perhaps a little bit unfocused.  I'll give an update as soon as I get one myself.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, then: keep calm and carry on... --Lexein (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

King James
Hello - as you were the closer of the King James AN/I, I'm sure you noticed that it was improper for Brendandh to have acted the way he did. Would you mind putting something on the Talk:James VI and I page, just alerting folks that an uninvolved admin actually has taken a look at the close? It might prevent accusations of a biased close over there. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As the person who asked Brendandh to close because I did not know how to do it myself; it is I, not her, that is responsible. The consensus was clear and valid, the discussion was thorough and the WP:Criteria was met.  The actual time of close was almost double that which was stated. I thought it a proper discussion and a proper close and move and still do.  Nevertheless, any blame, if blame is laid, is upon me, not Brendandh. Mugginsx (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There really isn't call for assigning blame. Like I've stated, thing could have been done better but the result was unequivocal and is now water under the bridge.  I doubt there is anything to be gained from further rehashing this matter.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood and thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Coren. Dohn joe (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ping
As an FYI, your addition of 'noindex' to ArbCom navigation and whether it should be made to be 'includeonly' is discussed here, where you may wish to comment. Best, – xeno talk 14:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

East Egg Realty
Hi Coren,

I saw that you deleted the page East Egg Realty that I was working on. I would like to re-submit the page. I was in the process or re-writing the last sections that I submitted and was about to hit contest. Could you please let me know what was the matter with it and why you did not give me a chance to edit it and change it so it met Wikipedia's guidelines? I don't work for the company. I have just used them several times, and honestly have never found another Real Estate agency to have such good customer service.

Best, jtravlos

Jtravlos (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, Jtravlos. I'll be honest with you, and I'm not sure I see how that article can be salvaged to meet our general criteria for inclusion (in particular, it seems unlikely that they could meet our requirements for notability or avoid being promotional in tone).  That said, you are welcome to work on a more fleshed out version in your own userspace (that is, outside of the primary article space) by following this link: Jtravlos/East Egg Realty.  I'd recommend you ask other editors for advice before it can be moved to main space.
 * Alternately, you could request its creation on this page, where you will be offered more support and peer review. &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello again Coren. Thank you for your prompt response. How do I ask other editors for advice? And how do I know when it can be moved to the main space? I guess I just don't understand how it could be considered an advertisement of sorts when except for the one link when I first mention East Egg Realty that shows you their website, all links are for supporting articles by other people, journals, magazines or to other wiki pages themselves. Any help you could suggest would be greatly appreciated. I also took your advice to create Jtravlos/East Egg Realty. Jtravlos (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Requests for feedback is a very good place to find help. I'm sure there are plenty of editors who would be glad to give you a hand.  Normally, I would offer, but I admit that I have very little free time lately and I expect it wouldn't be very fair for you if you were stuck having to wait for me before you can progress.  As for when, it's really a matter of judgement.  I expect that anyone who helps you with the article will have a good idea of when it's in a state where moving it to main space is the right thing to do.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Coren. Thank you for all your help. I appreciate it. Best, Jtravlos (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello again Coren! When you do have time, if you could check out my user space link and give me any tips, I would greatly appreciate it. Doesn't have to be today. Just whenever you have time. I also understand if this isn't possible. Best jtravlosJtravlos (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Vilmar eddy hilberg-jacobsen
Any chance you could sandbox Vilmar eddy hilberg-jacobsen for me for a moment? I saw the user asked WHY WAS THIS DELETED on the talkpage about 2 seconds after it was speedied, and I'd like to elaborate for them. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Userified at User:Onlinelondon/Vilmar eddy hilberg-jacobsen. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, you can re-delete it now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment
FWIW I think your comment is valuable for nothing else than to demonstrate that there are editors besides me who think this. In fact, I think it's a point worth highlighting in general. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Have me blocked if you like. --cc 15:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that individual had or has other accounts as well. Look at his edits in his first week here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe this is best placed in the "not worth the trouble" bin atm. &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

ACE 2011
Per the close of the 2011 ACE RFC, candidate statements must "...meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data and confirm in their election statement they will fully comply with the criteria; and disclose any alternate accounts in their election statements (legitimate accounts which have been declared to the Arbitration Committee prior to the close of nominations need not be publicly disclosed)." I think you need to add something to your statement to cover those to requirements. Monty 845  01:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems a wee bit silly given that I've met those requirements three years ago and am already identified. :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize it is a bit silly, but it is how the RFC was closed, and both mandatory statements are also required by Arbitration/Policy. I'm concerned with maintaining the perceived legitimacy of the election, and I think it would look bad if you won while ignoring those rules, even if they are silly. It hardly seems worthy of invoking IAR over. Monty  845  04:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think it's very silly to make a statement that I will comply with requirements I've met long ago. I also think it's not worth making a fuss over.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Might I make a point that if they are on Identification noticeboard, they are already identified. Easy.    Ebe 123   → report ← Contribs 22:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Arb case
Hey. May I ask what's going on with the Abortion arb case? After a couple months it seems like there's no movement from anyone, including the drafters of the case. Doesn't affect me when it's done of course, just my old immediatist sense tingling again. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Evil Real Life reared its head again. The primary drafter has had on-and-off availability which, combined with the case complexity, means that it has kept being delayed.  As a matter of fact, Risker has been prodding us on that very topic a few days ago and I expect the proposed decision will soon be posted.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wizardman, you should save this page :) NW ( Talk ) 06:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What about making this one?. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you hate me, and more importantly, freedom? NW ( Talk ) 17:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Won't someone think of the children?! &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Awesome
If I were the sort of person who says things like "you won the wiki," I'd have to say that with these edits, you won the wiki. ;) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. I tend to be too snarky for my own good at times, but if I manage to get someone to spill their drink now and then it's all worth it.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You've been quoted
I just thought I'd say thank you for your brilliant phraseology at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Coren/Questions when you wrote: "The skillset is very different, and I believe good content editing is best left to those who have more talent for it than I. Each of us brings something different to the project, and I'm much more of a "behind the scenes machinery" guy than others. For every ace pilot, there needs be people to man the tower and maintain the fighters – those of us who make sure they can do their job. I'd rather do a good job at the ATC than crash planes. :-)"

I've just use that in response to a bit of admin bashing at Deletion review/Log/2011 November 14. I hope you don't mind. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how justified "brilliant" may be as a qualifier, but I'm glad the sentiment is clearly conveyed. &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

ACE2011
Dear Coren, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2011 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the elections and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words. Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

In order for your candidacy to be valid, your nomination statement must also include a declaration of any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee), and must express your willingness and ability to meet the Wikimedia Foundation's access to nonpublic data policy.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! -- DQ  (t)   (e)  06:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Disclosing alts
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=Coren – Can you please add your alts to your statement? It's one of the requirements for the election. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, good point. I don't actually edit from any of those, but you're right that they should be enumerated.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the Arbitration Committee Elections
Coren,

As a candidate for the Arbitration Committee elections, please be aware that your name has been entered into the SecurePoll ballot and can no longer be removed barring the most dire of emergencies and direct manipulation of the database. While you may still withdraw from the election, your name will not be removed from the ballot, but only struck through. If you have any further questions on the process, feel free to contact myself, the other election administrators, or the election coordinators. --Tznkai (talk), 2011 Arbitration Committee Election Administrator. 21:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of topic ban breadth
Dear Corin, If possible could I have a little more clarification on the topic ban, or will that be forth-coming in due time?. I understand it is indefinite, but without scope to appeal. I have adhered to my earlier topic ban. But prefer clear delineated boundaries, so that I know where I have scope to discuss/edit. My earlier topic ban was enacted through an ANI and this is not to appeal that, or the current ban. If I may speak in regard to the former, I have not edited in breach of that ban as earlier clarification defined it as not covering abortion (at that time), and have fastidiously avoided the two articles that gave rise to that ban, as well as others that might be construed to be within it's breadth. Can I therefore ask what way I should understand the scope of my topic ban from the recently closed Abortion ARBcom? DMSBel (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll answer on your talk page. &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed contribution to Wikipedia
Coren: You will find here a proposed addition to the article Wikipedia in a section titled "Governing hierarchy and structure of WP and the responsibilities of different agencies". It is posted on the Talk page and after a few days an RfC was sent out, but in the week or so it has been posted, it has attracted very little attention. I believe it could benefit from consideration by those familiar with the structure of WP.

Would you either undertake to look at it yourself, or perhaps suggest what can be done to get others interested in it. If it is simply so well done that comment is unnecessary (!), I will move it to the main article from the Talk page.

Thanks for your attention. Brews ohare (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)