User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2010/11

User:68.239.233.45
Please look into it. As soon as your 31-hour block – from 26 October 2010 – has expired, went right back to his funny game and vandalized the same article here. Thanks, — LMK3 (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect (I dont mean to question your block just maybe provide an alternative view) while looking at this editor's editing history (since ive tried communciating with them, I feel im a bit involved), I think they are merely trying to re-position the images on the page so the images do not overlap the subject header lines. This is what seems to show if you look at the page's formats after User:68.239.233.45 edited (where the page format actually presents better when viewed on IE than before their edits (dont know about other browsers). They basically just do not know how to position an image properly but i think they have good intentions here. I do not think he/she is deliberately trying to damage or disrupt the page, just needs some guidance on how to do this properly. happy editing. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You may well be correct, but all we can do is to speculate because 68.239 has so far failed to explain the edits - either in the edit summary, or on their talk page. Even assuming that they are not deliberately disrupting, the fact that they did it again after they have been blocked for it once already, and without any attempt to explain what they are doing, IMO is more than sufficient to justify the block. T. Canens (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

speedy deletion of Itamar Ben-Gvir
Hi, You speedily deleted Itamar Ben-Gvir on the grounds that it didn't assert the notability of its subject. Perhaps you didn't realise that the article was very short only because most of it was recently deleted without comment in an apparent act of vandalism by a user who has otherwise done nothing. A link to the article before the vandalism is this one. Clearly this article has problems, but I don't think it is an SD candidate. Perhaps AfD or Cleanup would be more appropriate courses of action? Zerotalk 03:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to start a new article there, but I do not feel comfortable undeleting since the revisions you are referring to repeatedly accuses the subject of criminal activity without any acceptable sourcing, in egregious violation of WP:BLP. T. Canens (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Zero on this one. Itamar is certainly N. He does have a colourful past with many allegations which apparently the court always throws out. I'm curious to know that BLP issues were in the article, but all I have is the cache on google of a stub so I'll use that as a base. --Shuki (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Doc Quintana
A week seems rather light for the stated block reason. Was there a reason you didn't leave it at indef? using socks to harrass another user is way beyond the pale. Spartaz Humbug! 13:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was MuZemike's suggestion, and I deferred to him since he ran the check. T. Canens (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Andrew Conley
As the admin who closed this as delete, you'll notice someone tried to speedily recreate this. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

BJS.Farrauto
You had previously commented, at Sockpuppet investigations/BJS.Farrauto/Archive. The account has returned to make promo conflict of interest edits at page Brad Sherman. The account has ignored all posts to its user talk page. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to worry too much about a single edit - if they start to do it more continuously, we can consider blocking then. T. Canens (talk) 05:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, will leave it at the one warning, for now. -- Cirt (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-block needed
Based on an ANI report I made here, you ranged blocked IP 166.216.130.xx for one month on 10/02. The block expired yesterday, and User:166.216.130.62, User:166.216.130.65, User:166.216.130.71 immediately restored all of the unsourced religious/ethnic/descent categories to BLPs. I will go through all of the edits and revert them one by one, in the meantime would it be possible to restore the range block to prevent further BLP/EGRS violations? -- Jezebel's  Ponyo bons mots 13:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reblocked both for 3 months. T. Canens (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And with that, my sanity is restored. Thank you kindly, -- Jezebel's  Ponyo bons mots 15:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley
Kudos. Balls and a brain, how rare in a Wikipedian!--Scott Mac 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, most of the IPs that came out of the SPI were already rangeblocked by an admin yesterday, so leaving the SPI existent would not have provided much more useful discussion. Good call. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 21:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * - Marknutley is asking to pass on the message to you that he "greatly appreciates" you closing and deleting that SPI. Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys. T. Canens (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand's sanction
Hello Tim. If I am not mistaken, it is a common practice at AN3 and other admin boards that if the complaining user withdraws a complaint the complaint is closed without action. Is there a reason this was not done with Gila's sanction?  nableezy  - 21:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As the power of administrators to impose sanctions is not dependent on the existence of a complaint, the decision whether to take action when a complaint is withdrawn is discretionary. We can impose sanctions when there is no complaint. In this case, the history of sanctions coupled with recent problematic behavior counsels against closing it without action. T. Canens (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Power of Administrators? Hah, now we know what it's all about. When someone goes to the police and retracts their complaint, the case is closed. As I expect this one to be, in the interests of fairness and the good of this project.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree, Gilabrand. Nableezy was taken to AE for incivility and it was withdrawn after he recanted. And what is happening months later? Same stuff. You do not have a topic ban. You have a sanction (and the principle of it sucks) but if admins chose to finally step it up then it is a good thing. Hopefully it is for everyone (unlike the Chesdovi getting nailed to the wall and others not) and you can continue your fine contributions with or without reverting. You can do good without reverting so don;t worry about it. It will make coming out of your sanction that much sweeter if you do not constantly edit in breach of it. Not sure if I agree with the sanction or not, Tim. but I don;t think it matters since Gilabrand will continue to contribute in a productive fashion if she chooses to. Cptnono (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "I have to disagree"???? What are you disagreeing with? I asked to be freed of restrictions that were imposed unfairly and in order to exercise power over people. Administrators can impose sanctions when there is no complaint? What is this? 1984?--Geewhiz (talk) 08:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Change "power" to "ability", if you want. Do we have to wait for someone to complain before blocking vandalism-only accounts we encountered? Before blocking obvious socks we discovered? T. Canens (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice wikilawyering, but you are changing the subject. I am not a vandal and I am not a sock. I have 28,000 edits to my credit, 27,999 of which you have never laid eyes on. All you saw was Nableezy's complaint, which he withdrew, about removing a triple tag which he himself agreed was excessive.--Nopleazy (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Same principle. If there is disruption it does not go away simply because someone withdrew a complaint. You may notice that your self-revert was duly noted by the admins in the discussion, who nonetheless deemed it appropriate to impose a sanction. T. Canens (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are also an administrator in the discussion, and you are the one who left the notice on my page. You are the one I am asking to remove it. You have the power (um, authority) to do it, or tell someone else to do it. You have collaborated to punish me in a way that is disgraceful and blatantly hypocritical. The "discussions" further down on the AE page are a clear and open admission of the bias that exists here.--Nopleazy (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And so far you have provided no reason for me to lift the sanction. T. Canens (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You should lift it because it is unfair, because it is vindictive, because it is two-faced, because it imposes restrictions that encourage stalkers and harassment, because it gives certain editors the fodder to file frivolous reports and create further disruption, because I want to contribute positively to the project without swords held over my head, and finally, because it is unnecessary, because the bulk of my work has always been adding content and sources to articles. No one is perfect, and I admit to a couple of missteps along the way, baited by certain misanthropes who get their kicks this way, but I have already been sufficiently punished. Please reconsider.--Nopleazy 15:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your imposition of sanctions

 * Nableezy withdrew his complaint. Why have you ignored that and written a message on my page about sanctions? Please strike it out. --Geewhiz (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalizing my talk page
Now I see you have struck out discussions on my talk page. What is that all about? --Geewhiz (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I haven't edited your talk page since I added the notice, whatever you are referring to it must be someone else. T. Canens (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman888/HansSolo54
I suspect that these IPs are one in the same with Roman888/HansSolo54. I have complained to ANI. Please look into this and add your input. The investigation I mentioned is the one about 1Malaysia and the IPs. Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentsMonkeyassault (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Kissle idea
When I hit patrol it would be nice if Kissle would auto remove the template. Thanks! Peter.C •  talk  14:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also what is up with the super high use of resources? This happens quite a lot to me and it worries me.
 * I'll see if I can fix the first one. As to the second, I *think* it's the typofixer trying to compile the massive number of typofixing regexes. Try disabling "autofixer" and see if it gets better. T. Canens (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Please review this
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia. --Sulmuesi (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to be resolved. T. Canens (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppets
Hi Tim, regarding this, I actually think the sock puppet problem is quite a bit worse than you describe. Canadian Monkey and NoCal100 were probably meat puppets rather than sock puppets (the investigation found they were from the same ISP and same area). I've looked over the edit histories of those socks, and it indicates at least two different users operating them. Stellarkid is the same story - got a one year block (as Dajudem, due to the CAMERA fiasco), then came back as Tundrabuggy, then as Stellarkid. These are serial sock puppeteers (NoCal100 has 12 confirmed; Stellarkid has 7 confirmed). I'm 95% certain that one or both are still active here, operating sock puppets. These are people out there who continue to sock puppet over and over and over again, and as far as I know we have no way to stop them (the indef blocking whack-a-mole isn't effective for more than a few weeks total per year, and yes, these editors have been up to this for years). CheckUser is great, but it can't be used to discover sock puppets until after they've been accused, and it doesn't work on users more than a few months old (and the sock puppeteers know that). It's also incredibly hard for us normal editors to find sock puppets, especially because they get better and better at eluding detection with every new incarnation. We'll try to work with them constructively for months, notice something oddly familiar, and eventually find out we've been betrayed. Or sometimes innocent users get accused of being sock puppets of those puppet masters. Both of those cause a break down in the assumption of good faith, and lead to increased edit warring and personal attacks. Anyways, long story short, I actually think a handful of chronic serial sock puppeteers have wreaked havoc on the I-P conflict discussions, and are responsible for a lot of the bad blood that exists. They haven't shown any interest in sitting out topic bans or blocks on the sidelines in the pasts, so I'm not very hopefully they will in the future either if that option is chosen. I have some suggestions for (what I think might be) a better way to address the issue, so hopefully I have time to write it up later. Cheers. ← George talk 12:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Same ISP, same area, same behavior = socks for our purposes. (Meatpuppets are less likely to use the same ISP.) Regardless, the tradeoff is between one sockpuppeteer and seven disruptive editors. The former can be blocked whenever discovered (and if they are not discovered that means they are not being disruptive...), and dealing with them is fairly painless - we have no shortage of admins willing to block socks. The latter requires constant management, and dealing with them is a totally thankless job that could result in a lot of screams of "admin abuse!". I know I prefer the former. T. Canens (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

RevDel
You scared the crap out of me; I just checked my contributions, and I saw something of mine had been revdeled here. I know why you did it, but that was a bit of a shock. Good catch; I don't read Chinese (a little Japanese, but not nearly enough to be of much use), so I wouldn't have seen that. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * T. Canens (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Sulmuesi
I'm wondering if this edit by Sulmuesi (a.k.a Sulmues) qualifies as a partial revert of this edit by Alexikoua  (Sulmues re-added the Albanian name of some churches, which Alexikoua had removed) and thus violates the terms of his revert parole, as he did not accompany it with an explanation on the talkpage. Grounds for an AE report? Please advise. Athenean (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a revert, though I don't think an AE report is worth it. Perhaps it's best to leave them a polite warning with a pointer to this thread for the first time? T. Canens (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood, will do. Athenean (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Remember ?
☺ Well, apparently, our joker is back, under a different IP. Please, see contributions by. He vandalized the same article Łomża again, exactly like before, (diff) Thanks for your patience. — LMK3 (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Protected, blocked. T. Canens (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI Thread
A thread concerning you has been opened by me here.  Giacomo  08:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI
See this account. I do have to say that the methodology was creative trying to stuff the answer into the edit summaries (revdel'ed by me). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I've taken the liberty of revdel'ing the username as well. This is etc. T. Canens (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

DRV of Carli Banks
I dispute that the G4 was endorsed. There were zero policy-based arguments for endorsing the G4. I'd appreciate it if you'd amend the closing statement to note that while a plurality of editors may have indeed endorsed the outcome, the disconnect between that desire and the actual wording of WP:CSD prompted a separate discussion on WT:DRV. That discussion drew more editors, and the opinion is clearly split on whether the wording is fine or should be changed. Jclemens (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My read of WT:DRV is that your position isn't supported and that Flatscan proposes to refer this back to CDS to consider updating the wording. Spartaz Humbug! 06:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that many people doesn't like what the CSD page currently says doesn't mean that it says anything else. I have encouraged a more complete discussion, which indeed might result in the wording being amended. In the interim, though, it says what it says. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I did read the WT:DRV discussion before I closed the DRV (I don't think splitting it out is necessarily a good idea, but whatever). It's referenced in the debate, after all. In either discussion, the general sentiment appears to disfavor your literal reading of CSD. An argument is "policy-based" even if it does not comport with your interpretation of a policy; it suffices that it is grounded in a reasonable reading of the policy. T. Canens (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no question that there are a number of users, Spartaz included, who propose that policy should be other than it currently is. There are also a number who propose that the wording of CSD doesn't support the... well, the wording of CSD. To accord this second group any weight in a policy-based discussion is an error.  But fundamentally, saying "G4 endorsed" fails to capture the fact that the debate has not been resolved, is continuing, and may very well sustain the wording as a global consensus that is divergent than the majority opinion in the local discussion. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All right; I think you might have a point with your second point, so I've amended the close. T. Canens (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Afchelper4
Hi, I recently started using afchelper4.js for Afc work. I've noticed that the script doesn't add the page and the talkpage of the author to my watchlist and it will even remove those pages from my watchlist. Is this supposed to happen? Is there some way to counteract this effect? Jarkeld (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. It now use your prefs settings. T. Canens (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Working perfectly now. Jarkeld (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

suggestion regarding 'Zsfgseg'
Hi, I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, but figured I'd give it a shot. Saw the story on slashdot, read some of the discussion page, and had a question. Somebody posted that an isolated IP address can be traced back to a NY city public school. Is it possible that:

a) Verizon is ignoring complaints because it is providing internet access to the NY city public school system (which would constitute a single large and powerful customer)?

b) Could the use of public resources for this purpose constitute some kind of violation of: 1) Usage policies if they are a student. 2) Employment policies if they are a teacher or other employee (and possibly done during work hours). 3) Criminal user of government resources for vandalism, or accessed without permission.

I hope the thoughts are useful, and I haven't been wasting your time.

Thanks.

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.99.167 (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, for your close endorse as an admin, at Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System. ;) Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for supporting me. Tofutwitch11 - Chat - How'd I do?    02:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. T. Canens (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

ITN
Too much had changed to simply revert back to the Chinese fire. --Stephen 02:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops - I thought I just added it without changing anything else. Obviously not. T. Canens (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Shuppiluliuma sock
This guy reminds me of him very much. A few random edits pertaining to the chosen "ethnicity" of the new account, before resuming the hardcore WP:OWN of Turkey. Note how he restores the version of the article preferred by his previous sock. Athenean (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Request to View Deleted Page History
I would like to view the history of a deleted page, this page: Laura Massey to be specific. I would like to view the page history specifically so I may know the original page creation date. And maybe you could tell me if this part of that page would lead to say that the discussion for deletion of the page, here would be invalidated, I suppose is the word to use. Basically I'm trying to say that if the article was created before March 18th 2010, then it can't be deleted simply for not having sources. Is that correct? Would that be a reason to undo its deletion?

I'm fairly new to the Wikipedia policy and guidelines when it comes to deletion of an article, so please correct me if I'm wrong. --GameSlayerGS (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for reevaluation of block
I have to question your indef block of User:Ian.bjorn. From the way I read the situation, it was annoying inability to get a clue and leave someone alone more than harassment. I've been watching Ian's development, or lack thereof, as an editor since the beginning of his time here, and I realize that he has significant problems, but I did not see any evidence of harassment. His constant demands for attention may have significantly annoyed those subjected to them, but I do not think that was the purpose behind his communications. Could you consider a reduced block time and/or some other method of correction? Thanks so much, PrincessofLlyr  royal court 19:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "He has also been spamming my wikiemail with random messages completely unrelated to wikipedia." See . Whether or not his on-wiki conduct amounts to harassment, spamming another user's email is plainly and simply unacceptable. T. Canens (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for reevaluation of block
I have to question your indef block of User:Ian.bjorn. From the way I read the situation, it was annoying inability to get a clue and leave someone alone more than harassment. I've been watching Ian's development, or lack thereof, as an editor since the beginning of his time here, and I realize that he has significant problems, but I did not see any evidence of harassment. His constant demands for attention may have significantly annoyed those subjected to them, but I do not think that was the purpose behind his communications. Could you consider a reduced block time and/or some other method of correction? Thanks so much, PrincessofLlyr  royal court 19:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "He has also been spamming my wikiemail with random messages completely unrelated to wikipedia." See . Whether or not his on-wiki conduct amounts to harassment, spamming another user's email is plainly and simply unacceptable. T. Canens (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-Roman Re-directs and DABs
Ever since you were involved in the preliminary discussion on Non-Roman characters in article titles, there has been a separate proposal regarding the usage of Non-Roman characters in re-directs and DABs, and you may be interested in joining the discussions on this page. Your input will be appreciated. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Request to View Deleted Page History
I would like to view the history of a deleted page, this page: Laura Massey to be specific. I would like to view the page history specifically so I may know the original page creation date. And maybe you could tell me if this part of that page would lead to say that the discussion for deletion of the page, here would be invalidated, I suppose is the word to use. Basically I'm trying to say that if the article was created before March 18th 2010, then it can't be deleted simply for not having sources. Is that correct? Would that be a reason to undo its deletion?

I'm fairly new to the Wikipedia policy and guidelines when it comes to deletion of an article, so please correct me if I'm wrong. --GameSlayerGS (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. All that says is that if created earlier than March 18, it is not eligible for deletion under that particular process (WP:BLPPROD, a lightweight and more streamlined process). It remains eligible for deletion under other processes, such as WP:AFD or WP:DRV. T. Canens (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Help with a range block
Previously you have helped me with range blocks on ranges 166.216.130.0/26 and 166.216.130.64/27. The IPs are used solely to add religious and descent categories to articles against WP:BLP and WP:EGRS policy. The same user, targeting the same articles, has now begun editing under (so far) 166.216.130.171, .177, .162, .195, and .168. Is there any possiblity in plugging this latest hole? -- Jezebel's  Ponyo bons mots 19:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Back again? blocked 3 months. This covers the two older ranges blocked, so they have been unblocked. T. Canens (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At the risk of WP:BEANS, I don't know whether they realize that their fave targets are on my watchlist, or whether they just don't care. Perhaps as IPs don't have a watchlist, they think I'm just sitting, waiting for them to edit so I can revert them. Regardless, you're a star for helping with this. Cheers, -- Jezebel's  Ponyo bons mots 22:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Arbitration/Requests/Clarification Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have included a dscussion of your recent actions, which I'm slightly confused about, in the request for clarification. Please could you comment there? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Interaction bans
I left a message for PhilKnight about that here, and after re-reading the discussion, saw you were the one to initially propose it. So I thought I'd share it with you too. Happy editing.  T i a m u t talk 18:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what PhilKnight said; doing nothing is not an option, and the negative interactions are spilling over to pretty much everywhere (article talk pages, project space discussions, AE, etc.) and so we need a broad restriction to make it work. Civility paroles are too easily gamed and experience has shown that they pretty much never work. So we are left with interaction bans and complete topic bans, and interaction bans are the less restrictive of those two. T. Canens (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Interaction bans (2)
Hello Tim. I would like to understand what an interaction ban is. Does it mean that we cannot comment about each other, or does it mean we cannot make comments to each other? For example, Jaakobou and I are engaged in a dispute at Talk:Gideon Levy. Can we continue to discuss that article or does one of us have to leave?  nableezy  - 21:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see you linked to WP:IBAN. That leaves open the question about current disputes and the very idea of an interaction ban seems way too easy to game.  nableezy  - 22:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of you should be commenting further in that dispute. T. Canens (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, but we arent kindergartners and we dont need to be treated like it. It would make much more sense to impose a strict civility restriction on us and restrict us from commenting about each other, but not necessarily to each other. So what happens with the settlement issue? We are all involved there as well, can nobody make any more edits to the centralized discussion? Or edits to the pages on settlements? And how long is this restriction? Indefinite?  nableezy  - 22:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is clear enough. You may respond to other editors, but not to each other or refer to each other. It is indefinite, although it will likely be reviewed in a few months. T. Canens (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, but if I may trouble you to answer one more set of questions. Can I appeal this ban in the same appeal recently filed by an editor that I cannot refer to? Or should I file a separate appeal? And if I do appeal can I mention any of the names that I am banned from commenting on?  nableezy  - 22:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You may refer to each other when seeking clarification or enforcement of, or appealing from, the ban (WP:BAN). You should file a separate appeal. T. Canens (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion
As someone how is (unfortunately for you :) well informed about WP:ARBMAC, and contemporary Kosovo status, you input will be highly needed at Talk:Kosovo. -- WhiteWriter speaks 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We are still waiting for your comment. Please, post some advice on that page. -- WhiteWriter speaks 13:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Warning! Possible return of Vandal that u banned/blocked back in June!
I want to report that someone logged on using IP Address 96.242.217.91 may be trying to use Wikipaedia as a propagandic tool for his/her own views. This person is adamant that New York's Chinatown contains the highest concentration of Chinese in the western hemisphere. As to the sources in question, they are nothing more than annoying business sites promoting NY Chinatown business and travel. To make matters worse, user 96.242.217.91 assumes that this is good enough, just because the author says so w/out incl. proof on how such research came about. It's like me writing that Elvis Presley is the first cousin of Kim Jong Il, and you'll have to take my word for it just because. In spite of efforts by myself and others to remove these unsubstantial claims, this homer is persistent in undoing our corrective edits on "Chinatown, New York" and other Chinatown pages. There are at least 3 other Chinatowns in N.America(Vancouver, Toronto, and especially mega-crowded San Francisco) that I've also had opportunities to visit on many occasions along with NYC, and I can tell you that each one could easily match or exceed what 96.242.217.91 claims. I would also like to mention that based on this individual's writing style, I suspect that it to be "Thmc1", who was recently banned by you from Wiki for conducting similar practices. Why am I suspicious? In addition to what I've explained above, all of this BS has just re-started not too long after he was ousted. Just take a look at logs. Thmc1 was blocked in June. 2 months later, user 96.242.217.91 pops up all of a sudden and resumes Thmc1's pro-NYC bias edits. If possible, I would like to recommend some sort of investigation with a temporary ban, and/or warning. Wikipaedia's articles should NEVER be abused to one's amusement as a propaganda tool.MBaxter1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC).