User talk:The Editorial Voice

I'm saddened by how hostile an environment Wikipedia has become.

Timotheus Canens's block
What was the process that led to this account being blocked?Cptnono (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Checkuser confirmation that the user is a sockpuppet. m.o.p  06:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw that in the heading shown while editing this particular page. What I an asking is how was the check user initiated? I see some bickering in the history on this page and an open AE request. I don't see an open SPI but I might have missed it. I don't see a block notification spelling it out. I am trying to understand how Timotheus Canens was notified. Was there an IRC request, an email, or something else? The lack of Wikipeida's version of a paper trail left me curious.Cptnono (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Timotheus is an arbitrator; I can only assume he saw the AE request and ran a CU as a result. m.o.p  07:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And I assume he is still taking personal emails from Nableezy in a way that some of us view as covert. Even if it is for the good of the project, he needs to be even more open now that he is an arbitrator. There is a great chance that your assumption is better than mine but he is now in the position where fears of him acting in a way that could be perceived as inappropriate need to stop. Cptnono (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didnt notify anybody of anything, now mind your business and go away.  nableezy  - 07:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And that was an answer that clarifies things. However, keep in mind that it is my business. I am part of this community just like you. Cptnono (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Following up is important, and I appreciate the intent Cptnono. You definitely have the right to ask. Timotheus is a pretty esteemed Wikipedian, trusted with not only checkuser but also oversight, arbitration and administration rights; I'm fairly confident he would not go abusing his tools or engaging in clandestine back-room deals. There are some cases where an SPI is not necessary and the decision falls down to administrative initiative; this is one of them. :) m.o.p  08:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that, as a project with a specific goal - the creation of an online encyclopedia - we're generally much more interested in achieving the correct result than in the process by which it is achieved. Considering that there is no requirement for due process here, that a CU was able to show that this editor was a sockpuppet is more important than knowing what instigated the investigation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Both of your responses are respected and I love the level heads. TC is esteemed (he got the votes) but he had been dogged by accusations of bias. I agree that BMK is correct that sometimes things just need fixing even tough I disagree with his appreciation of the importance of due diligence. I will ask TC on his talk page directly to see if he responds there. I am happy to hear that Nableezy did not instigate the block with an off the record email and am now just curious to see the process that a membe of arbcom used to make the decision.Cptnono (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You wrote above he is now in the position where fears of him acting in a way that could be perceived as inappropriate need to stop. Do you understand how ass-backwards that line is? He is responsible for others' irrationality? He needs to prevent others' paranoia? How exactly can somebody do such a thing? Is he empowered to require that somebody seek psychiatric attention to help them deal with their unfounded and irrational fears?  nableezy  - 16:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)