Meta:Requests for adminship/Coren

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Candidate withdrew.

Coren[edit]

Coren (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Ending no earlier than: 17:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm an administrator, checkuser and oversight on enwp, and a member of its Arbitration Committee. I'm likely to spend many months of heavy contributions on Meta because of my current project, and I might as well make myself more generally useful while I'm around. I expect I'll mostly swat vandals I run across, but I'll give a hand with pressing backlogs when I can. — Coren ^{(talk) / (en-wiki)} 17:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: withdrawing, as it is clear there is no consensus. — Coren ^{(talk) / (en-wiki)} 11:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Coren is eminently trustworthy and helpful. No issues here, if he says he'll be helpful crosswiki, I am happy to accept his word for it. -- Avi 17:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What kind of experience with Meta and cross-wiki matters do you have? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly superficial: cross-wiki sock hunting, requests here for steward action, and other small matters. I'm not one, however, to presume that the "enwp way" is the only way, and I have no ego to bruise by deferring to those of my colleagues who are more familiar with local matters when things aren't crystal clear — at least until I'm familiar enough with local policy. That being said, I'm pretty sure that "penis penis penis" isn't any more suitable here than on enwp. :-) — Coren ^{(talk) / (en-wiki)} 17:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; Support. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support User is experienced and is trustworthy enough to not abuse the tools here. No problems here, Razor flame 18:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Coren's a good, trustworthy guy, and I can't see why he wouldn't be a good admin here. Cbrown1023 talk 19:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ar son - no problems here - Alison ^❤ 23:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support trustworthy. --Meno25 23:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't really trust him at all, and his own contributions to meta are to the bid. I don't see any compelling need for adminship. Yes, it's not a big deal but no need to hand it out like candy to just anyone. Majorly talk 23:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While I am of the mindset that meta adminship is no big deal, I do agree with some of the points Majorly makes about activity levels. That said, Coren has stated he intends to become more active and I think he knows how to use the tools. ;-) Tiptoety ^talk 00:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trust is the only real requirement I look for, given that the majority of Meta work is one or two small edits that make big changes (such as the blacklists) versus writing featured articles and similar. I figure if Coren, who is already trusted, thinks he needs the rights, there's no good reason to deny the request. Kylu 00:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Kylu. – Innv | d | s: 01:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —§ stay (sic)! 01:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted user that needs the tools. A Stop at Willoughby 02:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Editor also joined under 2 hours ago and has 8 edits. Majorly talk 02:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? "Registration time: 22:17, 19 August 2007" — Coren ^{(talk) / (en-wiki)} 03:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly means A Stop at Willoughby. -- Avi 03:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ···Lauryn 03:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --თოგო ^(D) 07:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support trustworthy --Church of emacs talk 10:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pmlineditor ∞ 10:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, trusted user. Laaknor 12:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no need for the tool and his other 100 edits doesn't show any kind of need. While adminship is not a big deal at all, there should be a need, otherwise it's unneeded to give the mop. -Barras ^talk 18:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose. A wikimania bid is not a sound rationale to administrate the entire project here at meta. de:Coren and es:Coren are unattached; Coren, and those your accounts? Less than 1/8 of his en.wp edits are content edits, and he has bugger all experience or exposure beyond en.wp. Also, Coren rarely used his oversight tools on en.wp, nor did he participate in oversight-l; see en:Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee/Statistics for verification of that. John Vandenberg 11:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they were my accounts, or could be usurped, they would have long been unified as you very well know, John. — Coren ^{(talk) / (en-wiki)} 13:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was assuming good faith. As those are not you, you have 1339 content edits to en.wp, of which only one (1) is a new page, three (3) content edits to other projects, and two (2) images uploaded to commons. Even Jimbo Wales has a higher percentage of content edits, and he has created 10s of pages. If you have spare time, I suggest you put more time into en.wp content; I hear there are a whole lot of BLPs which need to be fixed up. John Vandenberg 14:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure as requested at w:User_talk:John_Vandenberg#Rather_unbecoming.: I have recently tussled with Coren after he blocked Giano on English Wikipedia. See here for details. John Vandenberg 14:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is meta, not en.wiki. --WizardOfOz ^talk 14:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. John, Coren's lack of article work on enwiki isn't a good reason to oppose here (nor on enwiki really). Nor is his lack of use of oversight. Majorly talk 14:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My oppose is because he doesn't have significant experience here or on any project other than en.wp.

I also don't like him suggesting on this RFA that he is an oversighter on en.wp; there are arbcom members who don't use that tool for various reasons, be it personal commitments or lack of time, and that is fine, but it is not fine to promote oneself as an oversighter when the community has no ability to determine how often they have used the tool. John Vandenberg 14:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And things still doesn´t change: this is meta, not en.wiki. You can oppose for any reason you want, but don´t transfer en.wiki problems to here. He didn´t lie as he sayed he is admin, arbcom member and oversight on en.wiki. Lack of work on en.wiki has nothing to do with his request here. --WizardOfOz ^talk 14:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of which project I am on here. Prior experience, and lack of it, is relevant. I didn't accuse him of lying; my point was that he is using "oversight" as part of his reason why people should support him here when he requested access to the tool but hasn't been active in handling oversight requests. Remember that nobody other than en.wp oversighters can see how often he uses the tool, so the onus is on him to be forthright. John Vandenberg 16:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once more: Even if he has never use his oversight tool, it is not relevant for meta. Relevant is that he has this tool and that he seams to be a trusted user there (IMO he wouldn´t have this tool other way). Let his work on meta speak for or against him, and not his work on en.wiki. Everyone can make his own view of his work with a look on his contribs. Make your vote, and let other decide if they want to vote for or against him, but don´t soil a user here. And once again: try to solve your problems there where they belongs, not here. You have a right to request removing of his rights on en.wiki if you mean he is not eiglibile, but there is no need to transfer this to meta. He is requesting adminship on meta, not oversight on en.wiki. If there are some relevant missuses of admin tools somewhere, than post diffs and show up. --WizardOfOz ^talk 16:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want misuse of tools, there are many examples - for starters, he has performed quite a few bad blocks that were overturned. However, the fact that he has little work here or on other projects shows concern. Lack of experience and need. Ottava Rima 16:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not currently active enough on Meta for me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: If he says he's willing to help out around here, I won't be standing in the way. Worst case, he does nothing (like most Meta admins) and we can hold a fun confirmation in a few months. --MZMcBride 16:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No confidence, untrustworthy user who says one thing and does the opposite after they are elected. Ottava Rima 16:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obelix 16:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Herbythyme. Durova 17:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - I'd rather you show a need for the tools. --Erwin 11:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava and Majorly state they don't trust Coren. I think they're wrong. I trust Coren just fine, and his work on en:wp has been fine. However I think I agree with Herby (as I often do) that more experience would be nice, and with John Vandenberg that some exposure to more of Meta would be goodness. reluctantly but would be glad to support if more activity across broader areas was shown in future. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you simply haven't shown that you have anything resembling a need for the tools. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mike.lifeguard. You have not shown any reason for needing the tools here. Razor flame 02:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]