User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/2

The Signpost: 31 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Question
Hey Tim, this may be an incredibly stupid question, but I'm just wondering how your mass block script works? I've seen it in quite a few admins' .js files. Cheers, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Add in vector.js (or monobook, or whatever), and go to Special:MassBlock (don't worry about the redlink). T. Canens (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! And I thought Special:Nuke was dangerous! Thanks. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

?
Would it be alright if I sent you information through mail about socks editing within the Arab-Israeli conflict? Nableezy could previously do that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. T. Canens (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sent you a mail a couple days ago. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted. A bit busy in RL now; I'll get back to you once I get the RL stuff sorted out. T. Canens (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing from a CU. T. Canens (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI
As discussed at, I've modified the block to 1 year. Your definition of what "very simple" means is quaint, to say the least. I wouldn't have know that. I might have found out if I dug deep enough, but I'm not sure. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Anyone who's technically sophisticated enough to use anonymizing proxies should know how to disable javascript and take down wikibreak enforcer, if that's what you are referring to. T. Canens (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree. But we don't need to debate this until one or more of us are blue in the face. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal
Hello Tim. On December 4, I was topic banned from the Israel-Arab topic area for three months. I appealed requesting a shortening of the ban but the appeal was declined but without prejudice to a renewed appeal after two months, if good work in other areas can be demonstrated. Nearly two months have passed since my ban and I have scrupulously adhered to its provisions, steering well clear of anything even remotely dealing with the topic area. In the interim and in keeping with your advice, I’ve made contributions to other areas. I am particularly proud of this contribution, a section created exclusively by me. I’ve also made extensive use of Talk pages and deferred to others even though I believed that my version was more accurate. In sum, I behaved, complied with the provisions of the topic ban and made substantive contributions to other topic areas while steering clear of controversy. I therefore respectfully request a shortening of the ban. Best--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted; I'm a bit busy in RL right now, and will get back to this once I get the RL stuff sorted out. T. Canens (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll lift the ban this time since there's not much time left anyway and it's your first long-term topic ban. Of course, if the problematic behavior recurs, you can expect less than favorable treatment. T. Canens (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Gracias--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

twinkleprod.js
Love your PROD/CSD tagging modifications. However, is it possible to modify your twinkleprod.js so it supports the modifications in the real twinkleprod.js? Logan Talk Contributions 23:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They should now be synchronized, though I didn't actually test it. Anyway, there's no way to do it automatically - Twinkle, unfortunately, is not written to be extensible... T. Canens (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Logan Talk Contributions 01:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

make Kissle available for other language versions
Hi, I'm a user from zhwp. I happened to see Kissle and I'd like to use this great tool to patrol new pages. However I found out that currently Kissle only works with enwp, so I'd like to ask whether you have any plans to make Kissle available for other language versions.

I understand different languages versions have different policies, so modification must be done to support other languages. For example in zhwp only sysops and patrollers can patrol new pages, so there's no need to use a permission page in zhwp. And CSD Abbreviations are different in every version. I think setting up a configuration page in every language version by local sysops for Kissle to read might work. For example: Permissions=false; G10=作者清空页面或提出删除，且贡献者只有一人. ;

Since I can't read or write programming languages at all, I have no idea whether it's a hard work or not to make this happens.(Hopefully it's not.) No matter you can make it or not, I'd like to appreciate your hard work for making patrolling easier.

Sorry for my bad English. :-P --Tommyang (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You could have used Chinese, you know... Anyway, that will require a major rewrite - the current architecture is not set up to handle it. But a rewrite is probably overdue anyway...I'll see what I can do. T. Canens (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5
Hey, Tim, since you deleted the subpages, can you share your thoughts on what should happen next at the AE thread concerning this user? Thanks. Courcelles 19:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

request copy of a deleted article
Hi. You closed Articles for deletion/Blood libel. Could you please provide a copy of the article that was deleted (to a userpage for me, or by email to me)? Note there is a continuing article at Blood libel, it was a different page that was actually deleted. Thanks in advance. -- do ncr  am  20:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's here. T. Canens (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks, i was just figuring that out, and just commented so at Talk:Blood libel. Thanks! -- do  ncr  am  22:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Topic Ban
Hi Timothy, With all due respect is your topic ban not rather high handed? According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Enforcement if you feel that I have engaged in any misconduct then the punishment is a short block. Also, it might have been common courtesy if you had asked me for my side of the story before simply taking on board what a few others had said. Also, what about the warning? When was the warning given? The procedure demands that a warning needs to be given. And that of course means clearly defining the nature of the misconduct. David Tombe (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At least after 27 October 2009, when Tznkai imposed sanctions on you under the general probation, you have had sufficient warning that future misconduct may lead to sanctions under that provision. The enforcement provision you cite relate to the enforcement of topic bans and discretionary sanctions. It does not supersede the express grant of authority to administrators to impose said discretionary sanctions in the first place on his or her own discretion. Wikilawyering will get you nowhere. As to your side of the story, arbcom has already heard that one and a half years ago and was unconvinced. If your present misconduct is substantially different from that addressed by arbcom, I would perhaps be inclined to hear an explanation. Since you basically just went back to doing the exact same things arbcom found improper, I don't think anything I hear is going to change my opinion. You remain free to present your case on appeal at AE, of course. T. Canens (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Timothy, The wording of the sanction is Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, David Tombe repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.

Where was the warning? And what was the behaviour that repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum? You have not identified that behaviour. You say that I have already presented my case to ARBCOM last year. That was a different matter concerning the speed of light. On this occasion, there was a debate on the talk page of centrifugal force about improving the article. I had support from profstandwellback and WFPM. Dicklyon was arguing with Martin Hogbin and myself. Martin Hogbin was arguing with me. Martin Hogbin was arguing with FyzixFighter and pointing out that sources supplied by FyzixFighter didn't back up what they were purporting to back up. FyzixFighter was claiming that the sources meant what he was claiming they meant, despite the fact that the wording was the complete opposite. Martin Hogbin concluded that the literature is a morass of confusion. Martin Hogbin wrongly thought that centrifugal force only happens in circular motion. Dicklyon couldn't get me to agree with him and so he went to AN/I and grassed himself up for incivility. So where was the misconduct on my part? Why was no dispute resolution attempted? What would have been wrong with taking the matter to the mediation committee? Why was I singled out for disciplinary action? The point of disagreement between myself and dicklyon was on whether or not the inertial centrifugal force can push against a restraining rim. So where was the fringe point of view that I was supposedly advocating? David Tombe (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You have been sanctioned before under that provision. That's ample warning. The third to fifth diffs in WP:ARBSL concerns this article, so yes, you have made your case to arbcom already. Repeating the same conduct that previously resulted in an adverse arbcom finding is by definition a "serious [failure] to adhere to the principles of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior". Simply put, you are not going to convince me by Wikilawyering over this. WP:AE and WP:A/R/CL are that way if you want to appeal. T. Canens (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Timothy, Let's start from the bottom up. I am not appealing at this moment in time, and I know perfectly well that you have no intention of undoing what you have done. Next, there was no misconduct. You have not identified any misconduct. You have not identified any fringe advocacy and I didn't even post to the main article. Thirdly, there was no warning, and neither could there have been a warning because there was no misconduct. And fourthly, if you want to go back to that incident in October 2009 in order to get your warning, I can assure you that there was no warning even then. The incident in question is now trivial, but at the time it was used by Tznkai to claim that I had breached the physics topic ban by virtue of posting to an AN/I thread on an issue which was a few stages removed from physics. However, most people who spoke up at the AE stated that they did not believe that the topic ban had been breached. And so there is no possible way, that even if a warning had been given then, that it could in anyway relate to the non-existent misconduct which you are alleging here. And furthermore, everybody knows that the requirement for a warning should be in relation to the incident in question and not in relation to an unrelated incident 15 months ago. And in this case the lack of incident in question. Timothy, you are totally out of order and your actions jeopardize the integrity of the project. And yes I am wiki-lawyering, and you are in the wrong, and I know fine well that the wrong will not be rectified. Your actions were designed to prop up certain participants in a content dispute, plain and simple. So let's end it at that. David Tombe (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to one single warning under the probation provisions before sanctions may be imposed. At least as of October 2009, you have had that one single warning. No warning is necessary from that point onwards before sanctions are imposed, simple as that. You might notice that the diffs in the arbcom finding are directly from your posts in talk space - posts you have been pretty much repeating in your recent edits linked in the ANI thread. Arbcom found that the earlier posts are misconduct, therefore the latter posts are as well. I'd strongly recommend that you stop right here, before it ends up with a block. T. Canens (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that beats it all. You are taking evidence from an old case and using in relation to a talk page discussion last week. And you are using a warning from 15 months ago in relation to one kind of alleged misbehaviour in relation to a completely different kind of alleged misbehaviour last week. Basically, you have failed to show any misconduct. David Tombe (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * David, if you could take a step back for a minute and consider the following, it might help you realise why this topic ban has been laid down. The aim of Wikipedia is to produce articles for people to read on a variety of topics, including physics. Article talk pages are a place for editors to discuss how to improve an article. Improving an article doesn't mean discussing and debating the basic physics ad nauseum to the exclusion of everything else. Ample evidence was presented in the arbitration case that when you edit on the topic of physics, you consistently argue on talk pages about your interpretation and understanding of basic physics (especially centrifugal force). That is not what Wikipedia is for. Those sort of discussions should take place on internet fora. Allowing that sort of conduct here simply degrades the editing environment for those who are here to build and improve articles. The diffs (including warnings you were given) were best provided in this diff. I would suggest any response should start by explaining the diffs that JohnBlackburne provides there. Carcharoth (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Charcharoth, The best thing to do would be to read the full discussion on the talk page at centrifugal force. That should have been done before any calls were made for a topic ban. You cannot consider the diffs provided by John Blackburne outside of the context in which they occurred in the discussion. Besides, the topic is a centuries old controversy which was argued about by great masters such as Newton and Leibniz, and it would be a mistake to think that John Blackburne has the last word as regards what is correct and what is not correct in relation to centrifugal force. And as regards warnings, we cannot take seriously a warning from a participant in a debate that the opinions expressed by the opponent are tantamount to actionable misconduct. There were many opinions being expressed in the discussion by alot of editors, and the matter has still not been resolved. We cannot allow a situation to develop where certain opinions are forbidden and where people expressing certain ill-defined opinions get topic banned from all physics discussions just because another editor gets angry and loses his temper. David Tombe (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban scope
I have recently re-accepted Wikifan12345 for mentorship. As a part of this, I would like to go through old disputes with him and identify positive dispute resolution behaviors. He is concerned that linking to talk pages within the scope of his ban (which you closed here) would violate it. Is this the case and if so would it be permissible to make an exception for his classroom? I'm sorry if this query is astray. Danger (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as he is using that page in good faith (I'll leave it to you to decide on that question), he may consider that page an exception to his topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers (2nd nomination)
Hi Tim. Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lady Aleena/Television/Crossovers (2nd nomination). The entire page isn't enclosed in the typical lavender background. I think this is caused by my quotation template. Do you know how to fix this? Cunard (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Replace quote with tags, but there's also a problem with Reflist, which I have no idea how to fix. T. Canens (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions. I've used the tags in place of quote. For Reflist, I've replaced it with some code that doesn't interfere with the div class template. This is the first time I've used the reflist tag in an XfD discussion; I probably will use it sparingly in the future since it requires much coding. Cunard (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about 3RR action
In response to my report on WP:AN3, you blocked a user for 31 hours. See here. However, the last reversion the IP made to the article still stands. I'd like to revert it but am not sure whether I'm permitted to (I already reached a 3 max). What am I allowed to do? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer is no as a matter of 3RR. Note that I voice no opinion on whether the information should be included in the article as a matter of editorial judgment. T. Canens (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. At this point, I'm well past the 24-hour period, so I'll go ahead and revert. My assumption is the IP will come back after the block and do the same thing. I suppose my only option at that point is to escalate the issue to other forums. I've already given him opportunities to comment on the Talk page. I hate escalating over what really isn't a terribly important issue, though. I'll think on it and take it one step at a time.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Inge Lynn Collins Bongo
"05:27, 6 April 2010 Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) deleted "Inge Lynn Collins Bongo" ‎ (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (CSD G4))" There must be a mistake, I can't find the link to the deletion discussion you mention. --ScWizard (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found the page: Articles_for_deletion/Inge_Lynn_Collins_Bongo It might be prudent to link to the deletion discussion in the deletion summary when you speedy something for that reason. --ScWizard (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js request
In using AfCHelper, I noticed that there is no option under decline for the "quick fail" criteria, such as a blank submission. Can this be added? -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 03:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's near the top of that drop down box. Scroll up. T. Canens (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did not notice that. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 03:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

SPI
Thanks for your response at Sockpuppet investigations/Herschelkrustofsky/Archive, but as far as I can see the discussion at WP:ANI is getting nowhere because there hasn't been a completed SPI. With second or third hand partial reports from a private CU, there isn't the information available to tell the community whether there is or isn't sufficient evidence that this is another sockpuppet of the banned user. Wouldn't an SPI be the right way of answering the question? Nobody expects disclosure of what the IP address actually was, but if someone is being blocked for sockuppetry, wouldn't it be correct to have an SPI to confirm it? If, on the contrary, the SPI doesn't confirm the sockpuppetry, then at least it would be clear that the block is based on suspicion, not on the standard of evidence which the SPI process requires. I'm no expert on the SPI process, but I can't see why there has been a reluctance to use it in this case. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, an SPI adds nothing in this case. We still work from the same material: the technical evidence (which has already been disclosed on ANI) and the behavioral evidence (which still will not be posted to the SPI due to WP:BEANS etc.); at best you will have another admin saying "I reviewed the behavioral evidence and concurs that this is a sock" and that's it. T. Canens (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed result concerning Tentontunic
How does this proposed remedy make sense? The Four Deuces and Tentontunic edit war over a POV tag, and you guys craft a remedy banning others not currently editing the article from contributing, because they were sanctioned some time in the past, regardless of whether they may have since reformed. Check the edit history, no one previously sanctioned under WP:Digwuren or WP:EEML have been editing the article for a significant period of time, yet you guys want to ban them for contributing in the future. I fail to see how that is rational or fair. --Martin (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

AE
First of all I really don't have any socks and thats the truth you may do the chekuser again if you wish. Second why the Passionless will not receive any topic ban though he was already convicted in edit warring on I/P articles?--Shrike (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was never convicted in edit warring before this...anyways I was just here cause I was wondering if Shrike's ARPBIA ban means no talk pages either, if it does include talk pages than he should probably be told so, asap. Passionless   -Talk  11:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also as the topic ban wasn't lifted yet.Does it mean that Passionless have broke it?--Shrike (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW tell us again because of what you received ARPBIA warning if not for edit warring?--Shrike (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You can read all about it here, "There is no 1RR restriction on Portal:Current events or its subpages. The caution about ARBPIA is something that needs to be kept in mind by editors who work on Israel-Palestine topics on those pages."-admin, as you can see, it was only a caution and the page in question wasn't even under ARPBIA. Passionless   -Talk  20:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * To avoid confusion about whether Passionless and Shrike can edit during whatever delay there may be between me lifting my sanctions now and you instating yours later, I'll let you just replace mines with yours on the ArbCom case log of sanctions. (To get everything extra-clear: you have my explicit consent to reverse my actions.) You might be best striking the message I left on their talk pages, too, when you go to notify them of the new sanctions they each face. Regards, AGK  [&bull; ] 23:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. T. Canens (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just FYI - block appeal 7  01:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I need your help
Can you go on http://flags.lidicity.com/index.html to prove to Tonywalton that the anthem of Buryatia is real? Search up 布里亚特共 and tell Tonywalton that it is real on his talk page. Brian Zhao 21:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"Mass killings" sanctions
Hi, because you are an admin who commented in the recent "Mass killings" AE request, I would appreciate your opinion about a new sanction I am contemplating at User talk:Sandstein.  Sandstein  22:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Kissle bug
Already! When I try to log in, it throws the following at me:

System.IO.FileNotFoundException: Could not load file or assembly 'System.Core, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089' or one of its dependencies. The system cannot find the file specified. File name: 'System.Core, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089' at Kissle.Kissle.CheckUserPermissions(ICustomAttributeProvider source) at Kissle.KissleComponentInfo.getAuthorizationStatus at Kissle.KissleComponentInfo.get_IsUserAuthorized at Kissle.KissleComponentInfo.VerifyAuthorization at Kissle.Login.btnLogin_Click(Object sender, EventArgs e)  at System.Windows.Forms.Control.OnClick(EventArgs e)   at System.Windows.Forms.Button.OnMouseUp(MouseEventArgs mevent) at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WmMouseUp(Message& m, MouseButtons button, Int32 clicks) at System.Windows.Forms.Control.WndProc(Message& m)  at System.Windows.Forms.ButtonBase.WndProc(Message& m)   at System.Windows.Forms.Button.WndProc(Message& m)   at System.Windows.Forms.Control.ControlNativeWindow.WndProc(Message& m)   at System.Windows.Forms.NativeWindow.Callback(IntPtr hWnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wparam, IntPtr lparam)
 * Exception Text **************

WRN: Assembly binding logging is turned OFF. To enable assembly bind failure logging, set the registry value [HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Fusion!EnableLog] (DWORD) to 1. Note: There is some performance penalty associated with assembly bind failure logging. To turn this feature off, remove the registry value [HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Fusion!EnableLog].

mscorlib Assembly Version: 2.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 2.0.50727.4952 (win7RTMGDR.050727-4900) CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/Microsoft.NET/Framework64/v2.0.50727/mscorlib.dll
 * Loaded Assemblies **************

Kissle Assembly Version: 0.5.4065.36838 Win32 Version: 0.5.4065.36838 CodeBase: file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Desktop/Kissle/Kissle.exe

System Assembly Version: 2.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 2.0.50727.4927 (NetFXspW7.050727-4900) CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System/2.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.dll

System.Windows.Forms Assembly Version: 2.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 2.0.50727.4927 (NetFXspW7.050727-4900) CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Windows.Forms/2.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Windows.Forms.dll

System.Drawing Assembly Version: 2.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 2.0.50727.4927 (NetFXspW7.050727-4900) CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Drawing/2.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Drawing.dll

Kissle.Commons Assembly Version: 0.5.4065.36838 Win32 Version: 0.5.4065.36838 CodeBase: file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Desktop/Kissle/Kissle.Commons.DLL

System.Configuration Assembly Version: 2.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 2.0.50727.4927 (NetFXspW7.050727-4900) CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Configuration/2.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Configuration.dll

System.Xml Assembly Version: 2.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 2.0.50727.4927 (NetFXspW7.050727-4900) CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_MSIL/System.Xml/2.0.0.0__b77a5c561934e089/System.Xml.dll

GetCSD Assembly Version: 1.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 1.0.0.0 CodeBase: file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Desktop/Kissle/GetCSD.DLL

Kissle.NPP.Commons Assembly Version: 0.5.4065.36838 Win32 Version: 0.5.4065.36838 CodeBase: file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Desktop/Kissle/Kissle.NPP.Commons.DLL

Kissle.NPP Assembly Version: 0.5.4065.36838 Win32 Version: 0.5.4065.36838 CodeBase: file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Desktop/Kissle/Kissle.NPP.DLL

WikiFunctions Assembly Version: 5.0.3.1 Win32 Version: 5.0.3.1 CodeBase: file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Desktop/Kissle/WikiFunctions.DLL

Kissle.NPP.Plugins Assembly Version: 0.3.4065.36838 Win32 Version: 0.3.4065.36838 CodeBase: file:///C:/Users/Administrator/Desktop/Kissle/Kissle.NPP.Plugins.DLL

System.Web Assembly Version: 2.0.0.0 Win32 Version: 2.0.50727.4955 (win7RTMGDR.050727-4900) CodeBase: file:///C:/Windows/assembly/GAC_64/System.Web/2.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a/System.Web.dll

If I continue after that, it gets stuck at verifying my access. Any ideas what the problem is? demize (t · c) 00:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You need .NET framework 3.5 or better. T. Canens (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I downloaded the .net framework 4 web installer, according to it I already have the .net framework, but I'll go try and find a .net framework 3 installer. demize  (t · c) 00:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, if you have 4 it should be fine...let me look. T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be that I'm running on Windows Server 2008 R2 (such a bloody long name), I got the .NET Framework 3.5.1 Features installed, trying now... demize  (t · c) 00:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, getting the 3.5.1 Features thing installed worked. I wonder how it'll affect my performance overall though, a whole bunch of crap came with it... :p Thanks for the help though, never would have figured that out! demize  (t · c) 00:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Refaat Al-Gammal
is very suspicious in light of the block and topic bans just issued in reference to this article. (I just discovered the blocks on Passionless and Shrike today. Living in La-La Land, I had been blithely attempting to do goody–two–shoes dispute resolution there while that was going on.) Can I suggest that the page be semi-protected for a considerable period? Should I report this to AE or SPI, or will you look at it? Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 15:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the best thing to do would be to file a report at WP:SPI. If that is returned as positive, then alert us to that fact and we will probably end up resetting the topic-ban for sock-puppetry and blocking the editor by way of enforcement. AGK  [&bull; ] 22:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is being dealt with off-wiki. No need for an SPI here. T. Canens (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * /❌ to both parties, at least technically. T. Canens (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

One-sided interaction bans?
Hello Tim. I recall that you have opinions on how to set up interaction bans. Do you see anything the matter with banning A from interacting with B, but not vice-versa? I see that Arbcom did that with Abtract and Collectonian back in 2008. This came to mind because of WP:ANI. I think that WP:ARBPIA and WP:EEML also contain examples of one-sided bans, but I don't know whether this formula has been successful. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The EEML one was later replaced with a two sided ban in WP:ARBRB. In general, one-sided bans are very easily gamed, since one party cannot interact with the other, but the other party has no concomitant obligation to stay away. Even when there's no objective gaming going on, the perceptions of the party under the ban may be influenced by the ban, to the point where they perceive gaming (not unjustifiably). Just my $0.02. T. Canens (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)