User talk:Coren: Difference between revisions

My question at the election

Hi

I note from your edit summary that you felt my question was not just loaded, but "very, very loaded". You're probably right. It's something I feel strongly about at the moment. Nevertheless, I've had some responses I consider very useful, some of them quite unexpected and educational to me, which addressed the points I was hoping they would. I hope other voters will find them useful too. As I said to NW in his question section, I already knew the question was badly worded, but did not reword it because some candidates answered almost immediately, and I didn't think it would make sense to do so in those circumstances. Still, thank you for your answer anyway. I will endeavour to be less "loaded" in future questions. I realise you are busy, and I don't need an answer to this. Good luck in the election. Begoon ^talk 12:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've answered your clarified question there. — Coren ^(talk) 15:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that. Begoon ^talk 16:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

F&A block

Just a formal request, I don't think that the block you did was correct. Don't take it personally, and in no way does this affect my ArbCom vote, but I (and a few others) would like it if you undo the block. Take it to SPI if you wish, and if diffs are provided I'll go with what diffs say, but I think we all need to AGF and say that he IPed a while before joining. It's not impossible. He could also have come from another project/wiki site. If you don't reverse the block, I don't really care. Just voicing my opinion. Please don't kill me. /sarcasm/ gwickwire^talk_edits 04:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I've no intention to kill you either way.  :-) The thing is, I work a lot at SPI and his behaviour rings all the "returning banned user" alarm bells; if that had landed on a case at SPI, I would have closed it in exactly the same way (It doesn't help his case that, in addition, he's pushing all the right "grooming for adminship" buttons right from the get-go). In this particular case, I'm going to trust my experience and the technical data and not reverse the block – although I remain open to an appeal from F&A himself, it'd have to be especially compelling to reverse my current appraisal. — Coren ^(talk) 04:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I know all too well about the ringing bells, and it did too for me at first. My first interaction with the user was in STiki or huggle or something where he beat me to a revert. That was, I think, the first day of his account. I found it weird, but didn't pursue it any further. My view is that he isn't causing so much trouble to deserve a block. I understand your not reversing the block, and I respect it. I'd be curious, even though its against policy, if we could AIR (whoops, IAR) and get a CU just for the knowledge he isn't a sock. Like I said, there's an IP starting with 7 (can't remember the full thing at this time) that edits so well, it could probably run a full RfA if not pass one at this time. Thanks for the reply, and not killing me to death. /redundancy/ gwickwire^talk_edits 04:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've already done a checkuser; and its results are consistent with someone who knows checkuser and how to avoid detection (that is, the pattern is not consistent with a typical user). On its own, it wouldn't have been enough. — Coren ^(talk) 04:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser recall

As you are a checkuser with paranoia who ignores evidence that someone isnt a sock, and assert they are a sock, would you please hand in your checkuser bit. Consider this a recall request if you will. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume you know that WP:AUSC exists for this sort of thing. --Rschen7754 06:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I sure do. I helped set up WP:AUSC. ;-) I'll go down that path if necessary, but I am kind of hoping that as the facts are all public Coren will sees that his continued use of Checkuser is not in the best interest of the project. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You mean, not taking into account that this was in no way a checkuser block? Or that – unlike you, I'm sure – I've never made any pretention of infallibility? Your posturing is amusing but unwarranted, and I've no intention of handing in any bit. — Coren ^(talk) 16:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added up the coincidences and arrived at the wrong result. The editor provided a pretty damn good explanation that matched. I've reconsidered, and undid the block with an apology.

I hope you'll forgive me for this heinous crime; but I'm afraid that your "request" is unfounded. — Coren ^(talk) 06:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, generally forgive Coren for the same type of hasty but understandable mistake for which admins and experienced users have been forgiving me all month. That said, CheckUser is a right that's handed out with very little room for error. I am aware that being the cause of this request for recall does not make my opinion any more valid that it would usually be, but, for what it's worth, I feel that Coren should be forgiven for this action, though I'd agree that serious discussion would be in order if something like this were to happen again in the near-ish future. The only immediate action I think might be necessary is to loop in the Electoral Commission - I think that once an administrator in high standing requests that an ArbCom candidate resign a bit conventionally given ex officio to all arbs, no matter what the result of that request is, it's worth asking the Electors if they see any problems. (Not that I at all want to sabotage your ArbCom run, Coren. I'm just thinking practically here, and clearly "looping in the Electoral Commission" could be as simple as MBisanz dropping by here and saying "nope, all good.") — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 07:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this was very much not a checkuser block in the first place (something which jayvdb up here seems to conveniently forget in his zeal to punish me). — Coren ^(talk) 12:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct, this was not a checkuser block nor should his bit be handed in. Coren made an error in this event and should be forgiven for it. Yes, checkuser is a delicate process but the technical results lie to the CU's quite a few times. (Which doesn't relate as this was not a checkuser block) I hope this does not sabotage Coren's ArbCom run nor do I think it needs to be as complicated as talking to the Elector. If the Elector thinks different, he should comment saying what he thinks. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 21:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Just in my opinion, there's no reason to even continue this discussion here, as the "recall" (which I haven't heard of in terms of CU) has no merit (or little, if any). I agree that Coren should keep his CU, as this is honestly the first time I've seen anyone have a problem with his CU (and there isn't a problem). gwickwire^talk_edits 21:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There were enough behavioral socking indicators that CU was justified in this incident, IMHO. I don't see any impropriety in Coren's use of the tool. The block may have been a bit hasty; however, Coren was without a doubt acting in good faith to protect the project. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	The ability to recognise that one has made an error, admit it, correct it and apologise, is probably one of the most valuable qualities any admin can possess. Would that we had more like you. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)