User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/12

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
Sorry, I prematurely closed and missed the latest comment you made. I have responded, can you take a look so maybe we can get some consensus on what to do on this one and get it wrapped up? --WGFinley (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tim I urge you to please reconsider your position. If the sources utilized (for the claim that part of the mount lies in Israel) are sub-optimal let's vet them at the discussion page or RSN. This would be the proper way to go about it and I would abide by the consensus. I made those edits in good faith and now I find myself staring down the barrel of a topic ban. If you want me to open a discussion at the talk page or RSN concerning the validity of those sources, I will. I will not be editing over the weekend but again urge you to reconsider your position and AGF.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

IP Blocked
I have a real issue of why my IP is blocked. User Buckshot06 deleted a picture that had a direct connection with the text. When I re-added the pic, and wrote that the picture is very much related to the content, he removed it again. At this point I do feel like user Buckshot06 has a political agenda. When sometime ago there was a NATO emblem added to the page to highlight the countries membership in the NATO alliance, he deleted it also. But, he was not blocked for removing material.

Based my on recent experience of constantly being blocked whenever I tired to stick to my editing, I'm noticing that there is an agenda displayed by some "long time editors" and "administrators". Why else would I be blocked for re-adding a picture of Marshal Marian Spychalski who is mentioned in the text, but is show with an American General, which apparently Buckshot06 does not like for some reason? But, when you go to the Wiki page that describes what is and is not vandalism here is what the rule states:

What is not vandalism Disruptive editing or stubbornness Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Dispute resolution may help.

Thus I ask that my IP be unblocked, as I did not break any rules, and as an anonymous user I am fully entitled to participate in the editing process. At this point a lot of stereotypes about Wikipedia are coming out, that a select group of "editors" decide who can post what, and to chase away user they simply block IP's I do not think that me re-adding a picture related to the text is in anyway disruptive, not only that I noted my reason for doing so in the comments section.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.227.161 (talk)

Hi..
I heard from a friend of mine that you have decided to take a break from the tools, and just wanted to stop by and drop you a note. I completely understand where you're coming from in deciding to take a break.. my break came after I felt like the Arbs had left me out to dry on an AE action.. so this is just a note that I hope you do come back when your batteries are recharged and just in case someone tries to say you've resigned under a cloud, I've made it clear that I consider that's balderdash and you can get the tools back anytime you want in that thread on WT:RFARB. SirFozzie (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope the break serves you well, Tim, whatever the reason for you taking it. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thank you
Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. And in consideration of your username, you might enjoy the article Rome Sweet Rome. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Improving the wording of the WP:TROUBLES case page
Please see User talk:NuclearWarfare, where your name was mentioned. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Lockman Hole (re: marshallsumter incident)
Thanks for helping to handle the marshallsumter incident. When editing an astronomy article, I just ran across Lockman Hole, which was deleted in that incident as documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/User:Marshallsumter_Incident_Article_Fix-up_Coordination_Page Based on Requested articles/Natural sciences/Astronomy and cosmology and it seems that it would indeed be worth an article, and I'd like to see what was there before it was deleted and possibly make it into a suitable article or stub. How can I see a copy of that? Thanks ★NealMcB★ (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you ask someone at WP:REFUND they could probably help you. T. Canens (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done.  Success :) ★NealMcB★ (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

AN
I have mentioned your name to the point that it merits notice over at AN. No action on your part is expected at this time, but I felt it would be appropriate to give you a heads up.Cptnono (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want further feedback I would be happy to provide it to you. People are crying wolf and boomerang even though neither of us are mentioned in the initial report over there. Let me know if you want the criticism and I will attempt to lay it out as civilly as possible. If you don't care then that is OK, too. Those crying foul over my comment was BS and you should be told by editors when they think you are not doing your volunteer work good enough.Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about alternate accounts
Hi. I know that you edit from multiple accounts. I have an alternate account that I use from my cellphone, User:MShabazz, and I have a question. Is there an easy way to sync the watchlists? What I do now involves copying and pasting the "raw watchlists". Any other ideas? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for pushing into this, but have you, Malik, tried to read your watchlists as RSS streams? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's something I hadn't thought of. I'll give it a try. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I could be of much help here - I don't really sync my watchlists very often, so copying-and-pasting the raw watchlist worked for me just fine. Never had the motivation to do something else. Also, call me old-fashioned, but I have never used RSS feeds.... T. Canens (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

several questions about my restrictions.
1.Can I still appeal to you about my sanctions? 2.Can I still revert an IP more then once a week?

Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer that appeals be directed to AE.


 * Your 1RR/week restriction does not have an exemption for IP edits. Therefore, no. T. Canens (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As you were sanctioning administrator and you response will be necessary in the AE.Will your reaction be positive to such appeal?--Shrike (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies about the delay. I intended to take a look at your edits before replying, but then RL issues prevented me from editing for the last week. Unfortunately I will not be able to review your edits any time soon, since I'll be traveling very soon, so I am unable to express any views on this. I will neither support nor oppose any appeal you make. T. Canens (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi
Hello, you gave Chesdovi a 1 year topic ban: "banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces, for one year,

Since then Chesdovi first did these edits: I brought it up at his talkpage with a rhetorical question:

Since then, he has continued to actively violate his topic ban: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take this to AE. T. Canens (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Doncram verbatim quotes
At WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224, you said that 's "excessive use of verbatim quotes...is unacceptable". Would you consider to be a violation of that finding? How about ? Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, these are rather excessive. T. Canens (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Liederkranz Club thing is just a blatant and unambiguous, straight-up copyvio - quotes don't make up for laziness. It should be immediately removed as such: we can't just copy-and-paste text from sources, slap barely noticeable quotes around it and present it as the body of the article. This could be a serious problem, with an editor as prolific as this committing such an egregious move after being here for so long. 6 months for edit warring was far too kind. Doc  talk  07:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your comments at the uninvolved admin section at AE
Hi Timotheus, You are not currently an administrator, so you should not be commenting in the Uninvolved Administrator section at AE. Please move your comments to a correct section. Thank you. Also, your proposal to topic ban MN who has an impeccable block log  for six months while suggesting that Nableezy who has ban and blocks logs to the yahooz should be topic banned for 3-6 months is a joke. Best. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will put my comment where I see fit. T. Canens (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * see -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

AE abortion case
The Esoglou case was closed on a similar basis by WGFinley where there was also clear evidence of blatant edit-warring and where the filing party was well aware of the discretionary sanctions. Could that case be reopened for the same reasons as the Netzer case?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If it were up to me I'd rather reopen the Cptnono case. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't see what else to do with it. I suggested indef and people complained, I suggested warnings to both and people complained and then Nableezy withdrew it. I left that for a couple days and decided to close, if you really want it reopened I'm not opposed to it I just have no clue where it would go. Cptnono is aware he's on thin ice, if he slips the indef is coming. As far as TDA I think he should preface with his remarks that he's been blocked and banned by me, might explain his unusual interest in my decisions and while I did say he should ask Tim in response to a question on my talk page I didn't mean he should be looking for someone to wheel war with me. --WGFinley (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that close was good. Looking at the filing party's conduct is entirely discretionary, and usually it's either because we have to look at it anyway to arrive at a fully informed disposition of the case, or because there's something wrong with the filing itself (frivolous report, etc.). In this case neither applies because the case as it was presented can be dealt with through a warning without a detailed review of the incidents. If anyone wants to file a case against Roscelese, they are free to do so. T. Canens (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I also was asking about the fact that there was pretty clear-cut evidence of edit-warring in that case, which, as you said with the Netzer case, could have easily been dealt with on its own without consideration of arbitration policy requirements for a warning.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)