User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2010/12

Discussion about modifying the arbitration enforcement request process
Hi Timotheus Canens, following your recent comments at WP:AE, there's a discussion at Template talk:Sanction enforcement request about modifying the process, which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Commented. T. Canens (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed the AE
While closing the AE report on Shuki, I had to remove a template you used around an AGK comment and replaced it with a. Please check that I didn't mess it up. (The box closed in the wrong place otherwise). Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. T. Canens (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that what I say here won't count for squat but a six-month topic ban seems punitive. This is especially so in light of the fact that at least nine editors in the topic area expressed confusion with or outright rejection of LHvU's comments concerning consensus. Shuki is a content editor who has created or expanded many notable articles in the topic area and the overly harsh sanction that you imposed (when others in the topic area have only received a slap on the wrist) strikes me as unequitable.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lesser restrictions were tried. Four times. Didn't seem to work. T. Canens (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My talk page
Am I allowed to remove the interaction ban notice from my talk page or does it need to stay for however long it is in place?Cptnono (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are. T. Canens (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sweet.Cptnono (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE on Race and Intelligence
I posted my proposed sanction there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheryl Linthicum
Hi, it seems that I tried moving a second afc article about Cheryl Linthicum to Afc project space (as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cheryl Linthicum (2)) at the same time you were histmerging the two versions to User:BeckyRowe222/Cheryl Linthicum. As my move ended up being redundant and messed things up a bit, could you move Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cheryl Linthicum (2) to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cheryl Linthicum? Since a redirect is in place I can't move the page there myself. Thanks in advance and sorry for messing things up. Jarkeld (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ T. Canens (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What is an interaction ban?
I see that Nableezy and Jaakobou are banned from "interacting anywhere in the Wikipedia". Does that mean they cannot both participate in the same discussion on the talk page of a Wikipedia article? They have been participating in an occasionally rancorous discussion at Gideon Levy, and I am wondering if this ban means that one or both are banned from participating in editing of the article.

Thanks for the clarification, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IBAN. T. Canens (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan
I would just like to note that this is the second time in one week that you've hammered a content editor, identified as being slightly more sympathetic to the Israeli point of view, with an overly harsh sanction. There were other admins willing to go down to three months but you quashed all discourse and immediately issued what is clearly a punitive ban. I woundn't mind it so much if you issued sanctions on a consistent basis to all editors in the topic area no matter their sympathies but it seems to me that those bearing the brunt of your sanctions are those associated with a particular viewpoint. If my observation is incorrect, please accept my apologies.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, maybe it is a new era in the topic area. Won't hurt my feelings if that is the case. Suppose it is a "we'll see" situation since the problems are going to keep coming up even if we do not want them to. Cptnono (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Shuki
You beat me by about three seconds, and I wasn't even looking at the AE page; as soon as I saw he was abusing multiple accounts to feign consensus at AFD, I was going to indef him. --jpgordon:==( o ) 23:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * :) Well, I think six months is good enough for a first offense - if he does it again, indef it is. T. Canens (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

AE
Hi Tim, Sorry for posting here, but I am not sure you'd pay attention to my post on AE.You topic banned wikifan for 8 months because of editor's prior history. Now you said this, but IMO it is not exactly correct statement about Jiujitsuguy. He has not nearly as bad prior history of topic bans as Nableezy does. Nableezy has at least 6 month topic ban for I/P related articles. As much as I could see Jiujitsuguy has never been banned for the whole topic. Besides what exactly Jiujitsuguy done to deserve to be banned. He filed a valid AE request, and that's it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Roger Dupuy
The article was tagged with BLP unsourced as well as extension from the French speaking Wikipedia. Wouldn't it be better to use regular procedures rather than deleting the page? At least to give an opportunity to find out the notability of the person. It sounds like Roger Dupuy is a recognised expert in French revolution, also mentionned in scholarly articles in English. --Anneyh (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole article reads "Roger Dupuy (b. 1934) is a French historian and academic at the University of Rennes 2 – Upper Brittany.". If you want to create something with sources, feel free. WP:CSD is a regular procedure. T. Canens (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding of WP:CSD is that it is a two step procedure : nomination then deletion. I'm under the impression I had carefully checked my watchlist yesterday and did not see any such nomination. In my opinion the tag "can be improved from the French speaking Wikipedia" clearly stated that the article was incomplete and WP:CSD also states that "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved". --Anneyh (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but CSD does not require tagging. If I see a page that is entirely vandalism, for example, I'm not required to tag it and wait for someone else to delete it. T. Canens (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This was clearly not a case of vandalism, but CSD states that "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way.". I don't think you considered that step, but that may happen to just anybody. I will not recreate the page, there are three red links pointing to it, proably somebody will do it later on (or not). I don't know if you're aware of Administrators' noticeboard/Unsourced biographies of living persons, I had the page in my watchlist because I tried to help in that matter. All the best in your future admin tasks. --Anneyh (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4
Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy-JJ case
Did you read my comment here? Gatoclass (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't when I commented, but I have read it now, and I do not think it necessary to increase the proposed sanction (3 months) even assuming arguendo that the diffs constitute sanctionable tendentious editing. JJG's history was relatively clean (a few minor sanctions, none of which lasting more than a few days), so a 3-month topic ban is a reasonable starting point barring very serious misconduct; we can deal with any continued tendentious editing after the ban expires. T. Canens (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Shuppiluliuma sock
The latest, I think:. Same interests, same pattern of edits. Also note the WP:OWN behavior on Turkish Navy. Athenean (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked. T. Canens (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

EDM 908 Science And Technology Committee Report On Homeopathy
Since I said I'd rescue this article, can you userfy it for me? Chris Neville-Smith (talk)
 * ✅ at User:Chris Neville-Smith/EDM 908 Science And Technology Committee Report On Homeopathy. Sorry for making you come and ask, the problem is that whenever you close something as "keep and cleanup", all too often it just never get cleaned up... T. Canens (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

AE appeal
Per AE appeal procedures, I’m submitting my appeal directly to you, the imposing admin. First off, I accept my topic ban but I respectfully request a reduction for the following reason. The metric for imposing a sanction rests on the concept of progressive discipline. Essentially, sanctions get progressively worse based on an editor’s sanction history. Nableezy and I have been given nearly the exact same sanction despite the fact that his record is far worse than mine. I have 3 blocks in my log and have never been topic banned nor placed on any restriction. Nableezy on the other hand…well, the record below speaks for itself.
 * 23 March 2009 12hr block


 * 13 July 2009 24hr block


 * 3 November 2009 Topic banned 2 months


 * 1 January 2010 Topic banned 2 months (lifted on 6 Jan, after appeal)


 * 1 January 2010 Indefinite block for making legal threats (later lifted after threat was withdrawn)


 * 4 January 2010 24hr block


 * 26 March 2010 48hr block with 1rr restriction in topic area for 3 months


 * 16 April 2010 Topic banned 2 months


 * 15 August 2010 Topic-banned from Gaza War, and all related articles for six week


 * 15 September 2010 Restricted to 1rr thru 12/31 on articles relating to Israeli towns in the WB and Golan


 * 9 October 2010 24hr block


 * 12 October 2010 72hr block (later reduced to time served)


 * 18 October 2010 24hr block


 * 21 October 2010 Restricted to 1rr for entire topic area until 31 December 2010(I couldn't find this sanction in the log that's why I've linked it. Perhaps PK forgot to log it or I just overlooked it)


 * 5 November 2010 3hr block


 * 29 November 2010 Interaction ban with Cptnono, Jaakobou and Gilabrand

I also call your attention to this interaction between Nableezy and myself where I engaged him in conciliatory gestures, even to the extent that I was willing to voluntarily restrict myself to 1rr so as not to gain a tactical advantage over him after a similar sanction was imposed on him.

I only point this out because in the AE, some had accused me of engaging in gaming. I submit that my actions as demonstrated by the diff show that not only do I not engage in gaming, I actually engage in anti-gaming by voluntarily leveling the playing field, something that I was under no obligation to do. I further point out that during the instant AE I did not make a single edit to any article because I didn’t want to ruffle feathers while an action was pending. Regrettably, the same can not be said for my colleague.

I also call your attention to the fact that in the aforementioned thread, I offered to self revert an edit that he found objectionable in the hope that it would foster better cooperation and goodwill in other related articles. He never acted on my offer.

In sum, I am asking for a reduction of my topic ban from 3 months to 2 months which is consistent with the first, second and third topic bans issued to Nableezy on 3 November 2009, 1 January 2010 and 16 April 2010 respectively.

I recognize that I am despised (that's probably an understatement) by many editors here who do not share my views on very emotive matters and that this appeal will undoubtedly trigger a flurry of naysayers. However, I ask only that you review your decision and consider my arguments in a neutral dispassionate manner.

Respectfully submitted--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick note that I have seen this and will get back to it later today. T. Canens (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review the matter--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies about the delay - was busy catching up with some RL work.I have considered this appeal, and for the following reasons, I am declining it, but without prejudice to a renewed appeal after two months, if good work in other areas can be demonstrated, and, of course, without prejudice to any appeal to the community or ArbCom.
 * First, the sanction at issue was one that was supported by three uninvolved administrators. Therefore, while I am technically the "imposing administrator" under WP:ARBPIA, the situation is substantially different from a case where I imposed the sanction solely on my own discretion, and without any other discussion. While this is not fatal to the appeal, as I do have the power to lift or reduce the sanction, both prudence and common sense suggest that the party seeking a reduction would have a greater burden when multiple uninvolved administrators agreed upon the sanction rather than just one.
 * Second, the ground of the appeal appears to be that the three-month ban is disproportionate to the offense, in that it creates an unwarranted disparity with Nableezy's previous topic bans, and is insufficiently lenient when one compare your history to that of Nableezy. Appeals based on disparities between the sanctions received by the appellant and another party are generally disfavored. Sanctioning is not an exact science, and unless there is a binding sanctioning formula that every administrator follows (highly unlikely to ever happen), some disparity is unavoidable. While hopefully unwarranted dramatic disparities should not exist and should indeed be remedied, it is difficult to judge whether minor disparities are warranted or not, because it is difficult to compare two entirely different set of circumstances, for instance, the circumstances that led to Nableezy's first topic ban and the present circumstances.
 * Regardless, I have reconsidered the sanction imposed, and am satisfied that there is no unwarranted disparity with Nableezy's first, two month, topic ban. The imposition of the topic-wide 1RR restriction by recent community consensus is an indication that the community is quite displeased with the situation, and such a drastic measure has rarely be employed previously. It is a clear signal that future disruption will be treated harshly, and that signal has been reinforced by administrator comments on several recent AE requests related to this topic area. Under those circumstances, I believe that a one-month difference is not an unwarranted disparity.
 * An analogous situation is the climate change case. In that case, two first violations of topic bans were sanctioned with two-week blocks, something virtually unprecedented but justified due to the exhaustion of the community's patience with that topic area.
 * The only remaining argument is that the ban was insufficiently lenient in that Nableezy with a substantially more problematic history received a ban that is only a month longer. This argument suffers from the defect that Nableezy's misconduct is different from yours. Reverting during an ongoing discussion has long been established as unacceptable, while Nableezy's "self-revert a revert to regain a revert" tactic is, as far as I know, unprecedented. This is not to distract from the unacceptability of that tactic, but the novelty is certainly an argument in mitigation (though not a strong one at that, and is certainly partially offset by the apparent attempt to game the 1RR system, but given we allow self-reverts as a method of curing 1RR violations, there could arguably be a confusion element, and as usual, figure out whether it was an innocent mistake or bad faith attempt is hard). In short, in Nableezy's case there is a number of factors that are simply absent from your case. The two cases are not sufficiently comparable to warrant the conclusion that the sanction imposed on you was insufficiently lenient.
 * Once again, if good work in other areas can be demonstrated, you are welcome to appeal again in two months' time. If that appeal is successful, then your effective topic ban length would still be two months. At present, however, I'm not convinced that the sanction imposed should be reduced at this time, so I have to decline the appeal. T. Canens (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I respect your decision and thanks for taking the time to review the appeal.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Your unfair deletion of In Praise of Talmud
What convinced you to [prefer to] take the weak argument for deletion of that page by the objective promoter of the deletion.???Xcff ggre233 (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV, one of WP:5P, is simply non-negotiable. T. Canens (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Liz Dent FBC
Please, i want to know; why the article about my soccer team was deleted... How can it be restored? Thanks. Magno Enrique Rios Flores magnoriosflores@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magno rios (talk • contribs) 22:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was deleted based on the consensus in this discussion. I suggest that you contact User:NativeForeigner, the administrator who most recently deleted the title, on their talk page, if you have any further questions. T. Canens (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You work to fast
You did not ask me what happen. You also have wrong assumption. Those who request my blocks, just deleted my editions, with arguments provided in history. They did not used any arguments just they deleted my editions. This is my arguments after all:


 * The fundamental legal codes written by nationally elected set of people are named Constitutions. The idea: "by people for people" was developed during the Enlightenment, by philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. The name 'Constitution' originates from Constituante - the French people assembly 1789 to constitute a democratic nation.

Firts who start talking instead deleting was: Professor Storyteller on 1st December. Rest just deleted my edition. Thus I request on you to talk with me before you announce me to be guilty and block me. More, I need not to have consensus, this is not obligatory. It is "invention" of such people who want --216.171.96.18 (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)--216.171.96.18 (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)push an editor away. That is all. Scientific work is simple: I give argument and provided support, somebody wants delete he should give counterargument. No contra argument edition stays. Simple, please do not bounce around editors! If somebody does not have arguments as BilCat and Dayewalker do not have can ask for "dispute" resolution. Please look for the individuals activities on History List, article 'Constitution' since 26 Nov. This are arguments?
 * ClueBot Reverting possible vandalism
 * BilCat Reverted apparent incorrect

Please be serious. Best regards,--Cleaghyre (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, announcements such as "I need not cooperate with anybody" and that "Consensus is not important. Important is science, true and facts" is entirely inconsistent and incompatible with the model of this project. You may wish to read WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:TRUTH. You may, if you wish to question the block, start a thread at the appropriate noticeboard, though I seriously doubt anything good would come from it. Moreover, if you continue to act as you did now, then in all likelihood you will soon be blocked indefinitely for disruption. T. Canens (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me you personality are bigger problem than the editors. If you do not understand that facts are more important than consensus it is tragic. You are administrator and you have disturbed sense of value. Whatever the secondary "principals" you use to block opponents it is manipulation. Science - so any valuable encyclopedia have to be supported by facts not by consensus - if most people agree that Earth is flat it does not qualifies as scientific fact. And it is where we are. You actually press on me to revise you position in the community. If you disregard factst and looking for some rules (secondary in fact) you are the destructor.

In fact you send me a threaten that I will be blocked indefinitely if I will keep my rules: 1) I need nobody consensus to introduce reasonable facts 2) I need not cooperate/consent with anybody who disregard facts (You got something from context ... Where it is?)

I will repeater for you: '''Consensus is not important. Important is science, true and facts''' You support such disruptors like:
 * ClueBot Reverting possible vandalism
 * BilCat Reverted apparent incorrect

I demand that such individuals will start to provide con-facts before reverting, and you support them.

I was hopping you will not answer and stay away from my attempts to improve the article, but I see you want suppress me by ill secondary rules. That is bad. My project will be to remove you as destructor first. I will stop editing articles instead I will sacrifice all my time to fight you. You do not deserve to be administrator. --Cleaghyre (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Email
As requested, instead of filing an SPI I have emailed you the evidence for suspected sockpuppetry by a banned user.  nableezy  - 02:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A checkuser says ❌. T. Canens (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats odd, Im not usually wrong. But thank you.  nableezy  - 19:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim, I do not believe that email SPI filing is such a good idea. IMO the accused users should be given an opportunity to defend themselves. I believe email SPI filing should be done in exceptional circumstances, and a topic ban of a filer is not one of them. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Defense at SPI is 95% of the time useless, especially when technical evidence is involved. Most of the defense comes in two varieties - "OMG we are not socks how dare you say that" and "I have no idea what you are talking about". There is a reason why we do not require (and indeed sometimes discourage) notification in SPI cases. T. Canens (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK,fine, but I still see no reason for SPI to be filed over email. IMO any SPI report that does not involve special cases (like for example outing) should be filed in an open. I also was not able to locate "topic ban" as one of the reasons listed in your "My off-wiki communications policy:" Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Any "compelling reason" will do. That the user would have been blocked had they posted on my talk is a compelling reason for them not to post here but to use off-wiki means such as email. Preventing unnecessary drama and battleground behavior is certainly also a good reason. Also, sockpuppet reports never have to go through SPI in the first place. I routinely ask for checkuser off-wiki when I see enough grounds for a check but prefer not to make an unnecessary kerfuffle on wiki or scare a genuine new user if my suspicions turned out to be incorrect. T. Canens (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for taking time to clarify your position.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Israeli Journalist - IBAN
Heyo tmcs, I was in the midst of a dispute with Nableezy about how to describe the writings of a certain controversial Israeli Journalist, Gideon Levy, and I was promoting the listing down of non-opinion/non-partisan sources so that we can get a better perspective that will help us build consensus to how the topics of his writings are perceived/listed (notability of topics). Indeed, me and him have had trouble in interaction and I tend to find the IBAN a blessing -- to be frank, I felt that he was ignoring facts as they were being presented to him and that his response would be by repeating my complaint against him, only in harsher, and more personal tones -- but this is besides the point. I definitely think there was merit in the interaction ban, but I would not want to promote the "consensus" as a single user or without a wide array of sources (we currently have only 2) on the Levy issue. Anyways, I was thinking of suggesting to Nableezy on his talkpage if he would like to lookup more sources and add them on his talkpage but I thought it would be best to ask first if this would be considered an IBAN violation as I have no intention of creating further drama -- to the contrary, I am interested in preventing future drama by giving him the chance to weigh in despite the lengthy sanction recently imposed on him. I apologize if I elaborate too much, btw, but I always feel as though no one remembers/knows what's going on unless it is specifically explained. Disagreements aside, I am interested in promoting long-term articles that are factual and this is sometimes difficult in such a heated topic area where many editors are more interested in their personal truth of good/evil when reality is far more complex. Anyways, let me know -- I am also ok with you making the suggestion that he list (non-opinion) sources on his page and I will review them and take the solid ones into full consideration / consensus building. Perhaps if you make the note it would have less of a chance for drama inducing (e.g. claims that either of us is violating the spirit of our sanction). p.s. English is not my first language and I sometimes get scattered-minded when composing long texts -- apologies if there's some repetition/breakups in grammar, etc. p.p.s. I hope this does not come off as an IBAN violation. That is definitely on a list of things I am not interested in doing. With respect,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  10:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I like that acronym :) It would, as you are not permitted to post on his talk page. See WP:IBAN. T. Canens (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think of my idea that you offer him the opportunity to list down sources on his talkpage? I think it not the worst idea to give an early approach into the collegiate effort and it might help alleviate some of the tensions that could build up otherwise. Thoughts/Suggestions?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are prohibited from commenting on or mentioning Nableezy, by name, by pronoun, or otherwise. Consider this your only warning. T. Canens (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for treading on muddy waters.
 * With respect,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

 * Thanks, and of course, congrats! T. Canens (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

new Guildenrich sock?
Definitely not a new user, he is clearly following me around as his contribs on Dec 6 are on the same pages as my contribs from that day. Most likely candidate is Guildenrich. Athenean (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * CU says ❌. T. Canens (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

RFAR notification on behalf of blocked user Anyuse110
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

tagging
Hi. No worries, but could you give me your outlook on this? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First it was not checked (it was a DUCK block), so the tag is inaccurate. Also, unless the user is indeffed, I don't like tagging their own user page (it's too much of a black mark when they resume editing); the tags on the socks (I probably should have tagged User:Anyuse200, thanks for doing that) and SPI archive are good enough for tracking purposes. T. Canens (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Shuki
Shuki? Clearly not a new editor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Different continents, according to a CU. T. Canens (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked anyway. I don't care (or know) who it is, but it is clearly not a new user. T. Canens (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is enough for a check but… what about JackJud? 100-edit user only comes out of hibernation whenever a Jewish or Israeli-related AfD/CfD shows up:, , , , , , , , , . Also, most of his other edits are just adding Jewish categories to pages , .  Bull dog123  03:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that simply because someone was apparently not a new user was no reason to block them. This person may have a legitimate reason for an alternative account, or may simply be a quick learner.    It is wrong to block an editor without any evidence at all simply because he is not a new user, per WP:Sock puppetry.  Take the person up for an SPI but don't go blocking editors simply because they appear to be experienced.  This is wrong.   172.129.11.197 (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Tim I am absolutely shocked at this. I can bring you a list of users I can think offeon the top of my head whose early edit history shows very decisively that they are not new. If this is grounds for block with no questions asked, should I expect that they will be blocked? Some of these users have been editing in high volume for a few months and have not been blocked for some strange reason. 74.198.9.177 (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have to say that I agree with the sentiments expressed above. I looked at the subject editor's contributions and saw nothing that would cause alarm bells. When I first started editing, I was technically inept and in some respects, I still am but not everyone is as bumbling as me and some learn quicker than others. Just my two cents for what its worth.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Right... so... which one of your friend's socks was that? Sockpuppetry is legitimate as long as it's not used to vote-stack or sway consensus. See no reason why they can't come forward if everything checks out. Bull dog123  06:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jiujitsuguy (and the IPs from Virginia and Canada). By that test, any number of editors, including editors in the same discussion such as my good friend User:Therexbanner, would be blocked.  I would think the normal checkuser process is the way to start such an enquiry.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Could these people be any more self-incriminating? Now honestly. Bull dog123 09:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Undisclosed alternate accounts may not edit project space (which they did); be used to violate policies and guidelines such as WP:NPA (with they also did, with the accusations of racism); the list goes on. There is nothing legitimate here, and why am I not surprised that we have a bunch of IPs commenting here whose only edit is to support the blocked user? The block stands. WP:ANI is thataway if you want to challenge it. T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also an interesting selection of people you're getting to come "support" a totally new user they've had no interaction with as of now. Bull dog123  04:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

reversion on list of banned user
thumb Hi,

Why did you do this revertion below? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AList_of_banned_users&action=historysubmit&diff=401690677&oldid=401690148

thanks --Censor (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably because attention-starved Jessica has been busy all day petitioning random people on IRC to have it reinstated. She really needs to disconnect from WP and move on - A l is o n  ❤ 23:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alison - just emailed you on this, but this was a mistake... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI - I have restored it again, after emailing Alison. There are several months more history to this than one day's IRC misbehavior, and RBI was applied from on high.  Contact me in email for further email contacts to include in the discussion if you want to consider changing this.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * George, you really shouldn't have re-instated that. Please check your email. WP:DNFT an' all that. Seriously - now it's turning into a dramafest, which is exactly what I was trying to avoid. Adding it really doesn't help matters at all - A l is o n  ❤ 01:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted because it's not a good idea to revert an checkuser/oversighter who is presumably familiar with the case for no stated reason. I don't really care either way. Now, could you guys take it *somewhere else*? I don't like seeing my talk page defaced by that ugly image. Nor the constant orange "you have a new message" bars. T. Canens (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well excuuuuse me! Myself and GWH have taken it to email (and here's another orange bar ;) ) - A l is o n  ❤ 02:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

ZjarriRrethues
Is this  (TC presumably refers to you) true? Just checking. Athenean (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. T. Canens (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible sock
Saw you blocked for socking; another likely sock just popped on another fluoridation page and is vandalizing:  and was hoping you could help out. Yobol (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As they're all posting effectively the same thing, maybe a text filter might help? After all, they're picking random pages at this point... Half  Shadow  05:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sock
Hello Tim, you have email.  nableezy  - 21:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please disregard, it seems as though somebody else has noticed this and reported it. Thanks anyway.  nableezy  - 21:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam appeal at AE
Captain Occam is appealing the decision made by EdJohnston at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive75. This is a courtesy note to make you aware of the request. Vassyana (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

I need your help please
Hi Tim, I would like to ask you to impose interaction ban on me and user:unomi please. I've already tried to leave wikipedia because of being harassed by that user, but then it stopped contributing, and I stayed. Now the user is back. We practically do not edit in the same area, and there's nothing for us to interact about. Could you help me please to get rid of that annoyance? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well...if you are asking for action under a discretionary sanctions provision, please make a report at WP:AE with the relevant diffs. If you are asking for a community-based sanction, you need to ask at WP:ANI. I'm afraid that I'm not quite inclined to dig into the contributions of both of you to figure out what is going on, especially given that I'm quite busy in RL right now. T. Canens (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Offbeat suggestion at WP:AE
User:Hodja Nasreddin (Biophys) has just suggested that everybody in WP:DIGWUREN might be checkusered. Since I'm not feeling very optimistic about peace and harmony breaking out on 22 December when many of the EEML bans expire, I wonder what your thinking might be. It's not a ridiculous idea. The 'abuse' requirement for checkuser would certainly be met. I've had some recent conversations on my talk page that made me concerned about the future regarding EEML topics. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That goes against the checkuser policy. Basically, checkuser is not for fishing, so we require some sort of individualized suspicion, either that a certain user is socking, or more often, that a certain account is a sock. But en masse checkusers are not a good idea, and it is also easy to game if you know that you will be checkusered (why we don't regularly checkuser RfA candidates). As to EEML, we can always reban them under DIGWUREN if necessary, or perhaps create some topic-wide restrictions, or, if it comes to that, ask arbcom to take up another case. T. Canens (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 

  May your family have a joyous holiday season and a new year blessed with hope and happiness.   Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

/ ƒETCH COMMS  /  05:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Fisheyesawr
I'm curious as to why you think User:Fisheyesawr is a sock of User:Freedom5000. Clearly his edits are not useful, but he's requesting an unblock and is on IRC asking about getting unblocked. I could be wrong, but he seems to be a new user who is confused as to why he was suddenly blocked without warning, not a sock. Thanks! — GorillaWarfare talk 06:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See Special:Contributions/Zxoxm. F. is also ✅ by checkuser to be the same as . T. Canens (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. Thank you! — GorillaWarfare talk 17:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

About your comment at AE
Please note that the section of ARBSCI that Cirt has violated does not explicitly require notification. I believe the appropriate course of action would be to request comment from ArbCom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That remedy is enforceable only through remedy 4, which does require a warning. T. Canens (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, what it says is: "Any uninvolved administrator may on his or her discretion apply the discretionary sanctions specified in Remedy 4". You may be right, but given the ambiguity, I believe it would be best to ask ArbCom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no ambiguity. To read it otherwise would pretty much render remedy 4's warning requirement superfluous, given the open-ended nature of 8(C). T. Canens (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Timotheus Canens, in a prior AE thread of which was the subject, I was criticized for posting to admin talkpages while that AE thread was ongoing. Now, Delicious carbuncle is exhibiting behavior of posting to multiple admin user talk pages while an AE thread he filed against me is ongoing - and trying to influence the outcome of this very AE thread. That seems hypocritical. It would seem to be a double standard if a different application were to be given to the behavior of Delicious carbuncle in this situation. Is that appropriate? -- Cirt (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not believe it is an analogous situation, but are you seriously suggesting that asking Jehochman about offwiki communications between the two of you is an attempt to influence their attempted closure of the request? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm seriously thinking that you two need an interaction ban. Anyway, it's generally okay to post on the talk page of someone who has already commented on the same request to ask for another look. T. Canens (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you for the response. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, (since you closed it) I have edited Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to strike my suggestion that JEH is involved. He doesn't fit the definition given in ARBSCI (nor do I for that matter). ++Lar: t/c 01:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I think there was a misunderstanding on my part. Very soon after I added new information to the original sanctions request pertaining to Cirt, you collapsed it. I interpreted "Claims of post-warning misconduct should be brought in a separate thread" to mean "start a new thread for this evidence", so I did. I did not mean to cause (even) more drama. Just so you know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have added "if at all", but no harm done. T. Canens (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A sock?
Could you please tell me what do you think? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Who do you think this is a sock of? Feel free to email me if you don't want to do this onwiki. T. Canens (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I do not know who this could be.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Your reasoning re Gilabrand
Hello Tim C. I noticed your comment at User talk:Gilabrand about lifting the interaction ban with Nableezy. Is your reasoning that the ban is no longer needed if one of the parties is blocked? "Given Gilabrand's recent three-month block for an unrelated offense, I do not think that leaving that interaction ban in place will be productive or useful." Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They were meant to be reviewed after three months - which is pretty pointless now since G. is blocked for that duration. Also, N. was not really culpable in the particular incident that led to the ban (it was because of one of G's comments), so I don't think it's fair to continue to ban them when the ban really does not serve much purpose. Also, interaction bans are meant to stop acrimonious interactions from messing up the topic area - with the culpable party gone it's pointless to continue it since it just encourages certain people to fish up violations. T. Canens (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Urgent: AfC Helper may be down
Hi there. At 20:55 on 19 December 2010, AfC/R was moved, and six minutes later, it was moved back. Since then, the AfC/R helper script "User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js" that you penned and I have been using without issues for weeks before has stopped working. The rest of the script, handling regular AfC, still works perfectly. I have yet to corroborate the issues with AfC/R with any other users, however I have had issues on three separate occasions at this point. Just wanted lo let you know,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The section title must be formatted "Redirect request: Something", which is probably why. T. Canens (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You might be right. That does explain the most recent one, however recently the tool did not work on three submissions in the proper format (currently 32, 33, and 34 on the AfC/R board) and I have not had an issue using the tools on things such as "Redirect request: " or "Category request: Category: " before, unless my memory is completely shot. That being said, if you can use the tools, it might be an issue on my end. I'm not sure. I'll give it time and see if I can get it to work in the future.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ping
Hi Tim,

I sent you email. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Addressing I-P at AE all at once
Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Israel-Palestine_Conflict. An idea for a nice, clear place to sort it all out. The editors named are not set in stone. Add or remove as you think appropriate. What do you think? --Vassyana (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card


Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)





The Signpost: 27 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for modifications to Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js
Hi there. I have noticed over time that a large portion of the declined submissions at AfC/R are submissions that are not redirects or categories (usually this means that it is an article or an attempt at one)

Can you consider atting to both the  and   sections something along the lines of

It's not that it's urgent, but this will save me from typing that line 20 times in a week. You can change the wording if you want, or ignore this, whatever makes you happy.

Thanks,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm assuming that those are the correct spaces for that. I am looking for those to appear in the decline box at WP:AFC/R.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to first fix Afc redirect and Afc category to accept such a parameter, then it can be added to the list. T. Canens (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for template
Hello. As per step #1 of WP:DRV I would like to ask you to review your deletion of uw-mos3. This was essentially a stealth nomination, as the person who sent it to TfD failed to put either a tfd tag on the template itself, or even a note on the talk page. (I could well be wrong, but when I reviewed the deleted template and corresponding talk page, I did not see any edits.) If no one watching the template knew it was up for deletion, there is no way we could have registered our opposition to it. Thank you for your time and consideration, — Kralizec! (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to log in to my sysop account now (connection security issues), but feel free to restore it. T. Canens (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do; thank you. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card
 </b>

Hello my fellow Wikipedians. I wish you all Safe Holidays, a Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year.
 * You keep the content of Wikipedia going and active and mostly right. You're the backbone; that technical personnel back up, and without you, we would lose our jobs. You also have to deal with some of the trials we put you through, but you're doing a great job. So again, Thank you and have a Merry Christmas. -- DQ  (t)  Merry Chrismasand a Happy New Year!


 * I know your positions the best as I have most of the above stated. Wikipedia would be a trash dump of foul language, sockpuppets, legitimate people who can't create accounts or edit pages, and no additional content being added. Cheers to everyone who helps Wikipedia like this (and doesn't turn bad) who doesn't mop, but scrubs the floor. Now, make sure to take a break and go do some stuff with friends or family. Thank you and have a Merry Christmas. -- DQ  (t)  Merry Chrismasand a Happy New Year!


 * Administrators, you're well appreciated as you mop up the floor and help the non-admins not have to clean up more messes. Your tools along with your judgement are great assets to non-admins. I am suprised how some of you don't just walk away from all the constant harassment and drama. But thank you for sticking to your post and remember to get some sleep these holidays. Thank you and have a Merry Christmas. -- DQ  (t)  Merry Chrismasand a Happy New Year!


 * Your job doesn't come to a halt with the holidays, you're always on 24/7 call. You're the police out there making sure that you are showing there are people out there protecting us. Your contibutions could be the difference between a very serious threat on ourselves and safe holidays. So thank you for taking on the hard task. Thank you and have a Merry Christmas. -- DQ  (t)  Merry Chrismasand a Happy New Year!


 * Your job doesn't end just with the holidays, like I said to oversighters above, so your always on 24/7 call. You're the investigators, CIA, FBI, CSIS, and other investigative organizations, constantly protecting us and our environment. We may not see your contributions all the time, but we know there is someone out there looking out for us and protecting behind the scenes - even when we don't know what's going on. So thank you for taking on the hard task. Thank you and have a Merry Christmas. -- DQ  (t)  Merry Chrismasand a Happy New Year!

Again Safe Holidays and Merry Christmas. -- DQ  (t)  Merry Chrismasand a Happy New Year! 20:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)