User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2012/11

2012 ACE RFC close
While preparing the pages for WP:ACE2012, I noticed an irregularity regarding the discussion on candidate eligibility. Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011 closed with a consensus that as far as edit count is concerned, the eligibility to run as a candidate should be the same as to vote. When Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012 was started, the eligibility threshold was listed as 500 edits, rather then the 150 edits from last year. Throughout the discussion, we discussed the 500 edit threshold as if it were the same as last year, and no one who supported any of the statements, myself included, noticed the discrepancy. My initial reaction is that support is strong enough for the 500 edit threshold that it should stick, but as closer of the section it would be helpful if you could address the issue, and clarify if the 150 standard from last year, or the 500 that was erroneously thought to be the standard from last year applies. Monty 845  19:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll get to this tomorrow since I'm really busy IRL for the next 24 hours or so. I seriously doubt that you'd have any viable candidate with less than 500 but more than 150 edits, so it does not seem that urgent to me. T. Canens (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied on the RFC talk page. T. Canens (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification
Hey, Tim, just wanting to be sure: Your recent comment at the R&I motion, does it mean that if the motion passes, you'll be stepping away from AE? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will, and I will encourage others to do the same. T. Canens (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's very disappointing to see this route being taken by some of the arbs. As you can see from my comments at that motion, I'm in agreement with your stance. At present, the motion is actually losing by one vote, so maybe things'll be OK; then again, comments suggest the support side will pick up a few more votes, so maybe not. All very disappointing, regardless. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Evidence at RFAR
Please review my initial statement at the RFAR case and the second-most recent comment by Zeromus. Diffs are provided in those comments that support the need for a mutual interaction ban.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw you were on, would you mind responding to my comment?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

ArkRe
Hi. I was reviewing unblock requests on hold, and I noticed that you placed ArkRe's request on hold on 2012-10-09, pending checkuser investigation. I can't see any SPI mention of ArkRe since 2012-09-17. I just thought that you might appreciate a reminder, so we can get this one off the list. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was my block, and Beeblebrox put it on hold. I'll ping DeltaQuad. T. Canens (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I somehow got the impression from the comments that it was your hold. Thanks! Bovlb (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the insane delay. I have posted comments on my talkpage. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  01:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

May I ask a question?
See WP:CIVIL

A number of years ago, whilst in poor mental health, I made a number of remarks that were considered uncivil. You know I've never shrank from it, I've never tried to excuse my conduct, I've apologised repeatedly and unreservedly, pretty much everyone agreed it was uncharacteristic and its never been repeated.

Yet its brought up again and again and again.

So my question is, having once been sanctioned for an uncivil remark, do I now wear the mark of Cain for ever? Can I expect to simply have to put up with people referring to a very painful episode, even though they know it upsets me? Is there a wikipedia policy that I'm unaware of, that considers editors can never put the past behind them even if they consistently demonstrate civil behaviour? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with your situation, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. Your history is public and no policy that I'm aware of says that you can't refer to someone's past misconduct simply due to the passage of time. I think the logic is that if you are behaving, people would have no reason to dig into your history. In some cases, if it rises to the level of harassment, we can consider an interaction ban, but beyond that, the only way I'm aware of that will completely put your past behind you is a properly executed WP:CLEANSTART. T. Canens (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL does, but that is simply ignored. To continuously refer to it, is also a presumption of bad faith, especially if there has been no repeat and it was out of character. And it has been harassment from my perspective but that is simply airily dismissed and not dealt with.  If I get upset about it and complain, I'm being "warlike". Wee Curry Monster talk 09:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Please move your edit notice
From Template:Editnotices/Page/Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict) to Template:Editnotices/Page/Israel-related animal conspiracy theories to match the new article title. Apparently that move requires admin rights. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

User Hizzmatte
You don't consider this and this to be personal attacks? Perhaps if you had left an edit summary when removing the warning I might have understood your rationale. Cresix (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He's indeffed. Warning is pointless. T. Canens (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless he's un-indeffed. Pardon me if I overstep my bounds here, but you removed a legitimate warning left by another editor. I don't consider that appropriate regardless of his block status. Cresix (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't think it's rather silly to warn an indeffed editor "you'll be blocked if you continue making personal attacks"? If he's ever unblocked - a quite unlikely event - and then went on to make more personal attacks, he'll almost certainly be indeffed, previous warning or no. (And, if we are really talking about whether the warning is justified, these comments are not really 4im material anyway.) T. Canens (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No I don't think it's silly for a lot of reasons (just one example: he could return with a new username). Most importantly, I don't consider it appropriate to remove another editor's warning. It's one thing if you had removed your own warning, but not someone else's warning. I won't continue pushing this issue, and at this point I don't really care whether the warning remains, but it would be reassuring if you could acknowledge some degree of misjudgment. In any event, I'll move on to more important things. Thanks for your responses. Cresix (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Motion regarding Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and related cases
By a vote of 8-0 in response to a request for clarification, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

"Remedy 13 of the Pseudoscience Case is modified to read 'Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.'Existing discretionary sanction remedies that this motion will deprecate may be stricken through and marked as redundant in the usual manner. Enforcement should now be sought under Pseudoscience, rather than under previous decisions concerning sub-topics of pseudoscience, but previous or existing sanctions or enforcement actions are not affected by this motion."

For the Arbitration Committee,  NW  ( Talk ) 22:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

AE Withdrawal
I'd like to withdraw the recent AE filed related to Al Ameer son's edits. Thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Uchida Ieyoshi
Hi, I noticed you were the clerk who helped start the SPI for Scarfaced Charley (Sockpuppet_investigations/Scarfaced_Charley). I just noticed that one of the articles he or his sockpuppets created, Uchida Ieyoshi, which had been deleted under G5, has been re-created. From my vague memory, it looks like the kind of articles on ancient samurai Scarfaced Charley tended to create. Would it be possible to check if this is the same as the article before it was deleted? Perhaps Scarfaced Charley has returned. Michitaro (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They are pretty different, actually. T. Canens (talk) 05:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Michitaro (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Take a look at the edit history of the accounts. I kept accounts for different topic areas, sometimes they overlapped, but the accounts were not used for the purpose of block evasion, edit warring or avoiding scrutinity in editing habits. The only reason the person who filed the case knows about my socks is not because they were involved in editing or content disputes, but because i voluntarily listed them on my userpage on my own volition.

Most of my edits consisted of dumping lists of sources on talk pages, and resummarizations on article space or adding uncontroversial information. If material was challenged, i did not use any of my accounts to revert.

I am willing to have my socks blocked and abandon their usage.Rajmaan (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As Fishmongrel, Rajmaan added the following information to the article for The Boxer Rebellion. He later reverted my removal of this information as Rajmaan, without disclosing that he had authored the passage. He also presented himself as a neutral party on the associated talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boxer_Rebellion&diff=511966020&oldid=511957299 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boxer_Rebellion&diff=524668658&oldid=524634415

KeepitImpartial (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * keepitimpartial fails to disclose the fact that i was the one who disclosed fishmongrel as my own sockpuppet right on my userpage, explicitly stating "This is my master account. I keep sock accounts for editing in different topic areas, as originally planned, but if they conincide i will discontinue the use of one account"


 * I did not claim to be a different person than fishmongrel. After reverting keepitimpartial's edits, I disclosed my own sock in order not to appear as a neutral party. Since i logged out of fishmongrel a few months ago, i did not ever use it again, and i outed it as my sock on my own userpage in order to disclose all potential conflicts of interests when i decided to use my Rajmaan account to edit the same article.


 * I added the information because it was removed last year by an anonymous ip. When i checked the article and it was different from what i read a year ago, i only undied what i assumed to be vandalism from an anonymous ip, since the information was found in the source. It was uncontroversial.


 * However, when keepitimpartial suddenly showed up, tagging cited information as uncited along with genuinely uncited information, and deleting other cited information which appeared to show a partisan agenda, i immediately undid his edits In one reversion, because he made all his changes in one edit.


 * I had also been alarmed by an ip address making major unsourced pov vandalism Rajmaan (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation needs YOUR help!
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.

Sock
Please see king of heart's talk page for information on what will come up in checkuser.Rajmaan (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1
You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)