User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2012/8

WARNING! Blocked user Thmc1 back w/ sockpuppet
I am writing to inform you that I suspect user Thmc1, whom you blocked on June 3, 2010, is back as a sockpuppet using at least one known account, Nyc88. This account's history log was created on Jun 4, 2010, a day after Thmc1 was blocked. Nearly 100% of the individual articles that Nyc88 has edited were also edited by Thmc1. Here's some evidence: Thmc1: 19:01, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (+25) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn (→See also: Chinatown, Brooklyn) 18:58, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (+4) . . Avenue U 18:57, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (-6) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn (→Demography) 18:56, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (-6) . . Avenue U 18:56, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (+158) . . Avenue U (Chinatown evolving along Avenue U in Homecrest, Brooklyn) 18:42, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (+46) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn 18:40, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (+7) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn (→Demography) 18:39, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (+15) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn (→Demography) 18:38, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (-27) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn (→Demography) 18:36, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (+4) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn (→Demography) 18:36, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (-8) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn (→Demography) 18:35, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (+18) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn (→Demography) 18:42, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (+46) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn 18:40, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (+7) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn (→Demography) 18:39, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (+15) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn (→Demography) 18:38, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (-27) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn (→Demography) 18:36, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (+4) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn (→Demography) 18:36, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (-8) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn (→Demography) 18:35, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (+18) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn (→Demography) Mbr> 04:26, 31 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (+6) . . Chinatown, Manhattan (→Demographics)

19:10, 27 May 2010 (diff | hist). . (-34) . . Sunset Park, Brooklyn (→Brooklyn Chinatown(布鲁克華埠)/Emerging Fuzhou Town(福州埠): independent Chinatown, Brooklyn article created - therefore, "split section" banner removed) Nyc88: 01:32, 22 July 2012 (diff | hist). . (-4) . . Chinatown, Manhattan (editing grammar) 00:30, 22 July 2012 (diff | hist). . (+306) . . Chinatown, Flushing (adding detail with reference) (top) 00:18, 22 July 2012 (diff | hist). . (+616) . . Chinatown, Brooklyn (adding detail with reference) 00:09, 20 July 2012 (diff | hist). . (+89) . . East Broadway (Manhattan) (fixing paragraph and details) (top) 22:09, 11 February 2012 (diff | hist). . (+1,634) . . Bensonhurst, Brooklyn (elaborating details more) 22:04, 11 February 2012 (diff | hist). . (+29) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn (making wording clearer) 22:00, 11 February 2012 (diff | hist). . (+7) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn (forgot to add a little more detail) 21:59, 11 February 2012 (diff | hist). . (+4) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn (reorganizing paragraph) 21:57, 11 February 2012 (diff | hist). . (+1,460) . . Homecrest, Brooklyn (elaborating details more) 18:28, 14 January 2012 (diff | hist). . (+102) . . Avenue U (adding links of other USA Chinatowns) Will you be taking immediate action, or will another investigation have to be opened? An investigation of another blocked user(Matandmoreland aka ScotyBerg) is currently underway, and there may be enough evidence there to link him/her to Thmc1. The IP addresses of Matandmoreland, Thmc1, and Nyc88 all appear to be originating from the same, small, 5x5 mile area(Westwood/Miller Park, Fair Lawn) of Bergen County in the NE corner of New Jersey. MBaxter1 (talk)
 * Take it to SPI, please. T. Canens (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Varlaam, again
Further to his block evasion as, it would appear he's back at it as ? 2 lines of K 303  19:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Varlaam" edits are from July 23... T. Canens (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which was about 30 hours after you issued him this warning about block evasion. 2 lines of K  303  11:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but they are old enough that I'm not really inclined to do anything right now. T. Canens (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Request to have view at my new article about Didier Castell-Jacomin made in my sandbox.
I would like to have your opinion about the given text (follow link). Next I would like to work in the external references. There for I need time to do research in the field. During this research I plan to leave this article for a rest. I hope you can give constructive advice about what to add/remove in te article in order gain a bigger chance of being not deleted. This is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Guffens/Didier_Castell-Jacomin&pe=1& Greetz Guffens (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason the article was deleted is because there's no evidence of the subject's notability. To survive deletion, you usually need significant coverage in at least two reliable sources independent of the subject (this is known as the general notability guideline). Alternatively, you can try to demonstrate that he meets one of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. T. Canens (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A very delayed thank you
I was looking through the edit history for my user page and noticed you reverted some vandalism on 22 August 2009. I've only just seen it and I wanted to say thank you for your eagle-eye! ;) londonsista  Poke 11:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

please finish processing unblock
User_talk:Trichuris_trichiura Nobody Ent 21:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to ping Daniel Case. T. Canens (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Sundostund
Thanks for doing the fix; I figured that it was much more complicated than simply removing the {{ subst:, or I would have done it. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

An
Yeah, I thought about just unblocking him but with the Arbcomm formality already underway on AN, I was sure someone would have shouted Admin abuse if I did so - Dumber things have happened on the drama boards. Thanks for cleaning it up. Toddst1 (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Smelly ducks, quacking socks
This guy was blocked for using an alternative account in a inappropriate way (WP:ILLEGIT). In his unblockrequest he claimed he was only editing through that account, if that is true he is abusing WP:CLEANSTART. It seems like he is back and evading his block. Arcandam (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I get it. Why do you think the IPs are them? T. Canens (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on behavioural evidence, its a WP:DUCK. Check the edits made by Trichuris trichiura: editwarring about an SPA-tag. After Trichuris trichiura got blocked he first tried to fool an admin into unblocking him, when that did not work he started evading his block via the IP's mentioned above. He continued editwarring about an SPA-tag and tried insulting me. Arcandam (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine that a good number of IPs/SPAs will edit war about the tag. That's not really enough evidence. T. Canens (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please check the edits, its a WP:DUCK. Actually that is pretty rare. He tried to get revenge by taking the opposite side in a deletion nomination discussion, insulting me and he continued editwarring about the SPA tag. Arcandam (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. It would be a major coincidence if another person who is not Trichuris trichiura would make his first edits in an AfD, has the exact same behaviour and immediately dislikes and insults me without a reason...
 * He switched IP adresses again. He uses at the moment. Blocked for block evasion. Arcandam (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Arcandam (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rangecontribs for 174.231.0.0/16 shows a lot of activity Since July 31. There are about five IPs from that range that must be the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed. blocked for a month. T. Canens (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because we cannot link him based on technical evidence to those socks who disrupts Wikipedia in a similar fashion that does not mean he is not a puppeteer... He obviously has a sockmaster account. Arcandam (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. It seems like you used the wrong type of protection BTW.

Could you please explain ...
I didn't see this comment until after the DRV was closed. I'd appreciate explanation.
 * 1) You wrote "First, CMCR judges have no life tenure, and are appointed without Senate confirmation and can be removed without impeachment."
 * 2) You wrote "Unlike federal district judges, they can't sit by designation on the courts of appeals, or any other federal court for that matter.
 * 3) You wrote "Their jurisdiction is limited to a very narrow category of cases, and they must sit in panels to hear cases.
 * 4) You wrote "The best normal federal-court analogue of CMCR that I can think of are "Bankruptcy Appellate Panels in circuits that have them (both are composed of article I judges with limited job security and powers and both have a narrow jurisdiction), and I don't think anyone is arguing that federal bankruptcy judges are automatically notable.

Well WP:POLITICIAN says nothing about "life tenure", so why is it relevant -- whatever it is?

Which US judges require senate confirmation? Are you suggesting a discussion should take place on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) that WP:POLITICIAN be amended to only allow judges appointed with "life tenure", and whose appointment is confirmed by the upper house of their national legislature? What about countries where the appointment of judges doesn't require legislative confirmation, as, of course, 190 other countries have Federal judges?

What does the term "sit by designation" mean? As to whether they can sit on federal courts of appeal, all the civilian appointees already sat on federal courts of appeal. The military appointees were all supposed to have sat on military courts of appeal of similar seniority.

I don't understand why you think the third criteria you listed above applies -- they too aren't in WP:POLITICIAN.

What is an "article I judge"? With regard to "narrow jurisdiction", the clauses that refers to judges in WP:POLITICIAN says nothing about narrow or broad jurisdictions.

As for your comparison with Bankruptcy appeal courts -- you seem to be saying the bankruptcy courts, while they may be Federal, consider trivial matters. You didn't say why you consider the USCMCR as comparable to the bankruptcy courts, but as for the triviality of their scope -- they consider death penalty and national security cases. Wouldn't most non-lawyers consider these the very least trivial kinds of cases?

Have you already shared somewhere whether you are a lawyer, in real life? Geo Swan (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of RFC/U concerning Youreallycan
I'd like to notify you, as a previous blocking administrator, that I've initiated a Request for Comments/User concerning. The RFC/U, which mentions your block, can be read at Requests for comment/Youreallycan. Prioryman (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick question
I saw you deleted Sockpuppet investigations/TRLIJC19. I was toying with that idea, but thought it was generally not done so decided against. I assume you deleted it with your clerk's hat on, and that the you folks would prefer non-clerk admins not do it ourselves (except I suppose for obvious vandalism, etc.) ? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm...the usual practice for clerks is to delete baseless SPIs instead of archiving if there's no worthwhile history to preserve. I haven't really thought about whether it's a clerk-only thing and to the best of my knowledge there hasn't been any, but it stands to reason that just as only clerks can archive, only clerks can delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Empty days in the DRV log
I missed the discussion to remove empty days from the log at WT:DRV (and consequently closed a couple of DRVs too early by accident). Is the removal of empty days from the log is essential to this new bot's function? or is it just something people decided to do? It's really a lot easier to keep track of what needs to be closed when all the days show up in the log. I wanted to get your thought on if there was a technical problem with this before I brought it back up at WT:DRV though. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no technical issue with not removing the empty pages; the goal is mostly to reduce TOC clutter, but it seems that people are too used to clicking Recent and scrolling up. How about always keeping the 7th's day's log? T. Canens (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Dear T. Canens, I wanted to take a moment (after an appropriate cool down period for all parties) and thank you for your patience and humility with respect to my case. There are plenty of people who might not be as thoughtful as you were in that situation, and I think it speaks very well to the effectiveness of some of Wikipedia's institutions that you were willing to give it a second look.

If I could also put a small question to you: I reviewed some of the edits surrounding this controversy, and I noticed that 4 or 5 IP pages were tagged falsely being me. Would it create a lot of problems if I blanked those? Or is there some other procedure for handling that? After the trouble that all of this caused last time I am very hesitant to make edits of that nature. It might not matter, but I don't want this to reflect negatively on me in the future. Thank you again. Respectfully, T. trichiura Infect me 14:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

AE appeal close
You shouldn't be closing an appeal of an enforcement action you supported and, in fact, an action you were instrumental in implementing as you suggested doubling the length of the initial suggested ban.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are in error. This is done all the time. This is not afd where only an uninvolved admin may close; on AE the admin offering the accepted result often closes. There were no dissenting views; the decision was supported; the case was closed correctly. Please cease arguing this case after the fact. KillerChihuahua ?!? 05:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Unblock Request Notice
FYI: User talk:JasonBludd. Hasteur (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

FergusM1970 AE decision
Hi Tim, I'm contacting yourself, Slp1 and Seraphimblade as you've commented on the decision at AE on the FergusM1970 case. I got a msg from User:One Night In Hackney (an editor named as a party in the original claims he has not recieved appropriate warning & therefore cannot be sanctioned under WP:TROUBLES. The decision could do with another look anyway-- Cailil  talk 11:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Cailil. I think One Night in Hackney must have been hiding under a bushel all these years if he is not aware of the discretionary sanctions that were authorized in October, 2011, for WP:TROUBLES. ONIH was a party to the original Troubles case and has been at AE many times on Troubles matters. He was also the subject of Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive107, an AE complaint in January 2012 that linked to the current version of the Troubles sanction remedy. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna have to go with Ed here, except I don't think mere sleep would do it. I'd say massive retrograde amnesia would be required. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ed and the puppy. This seems to be a textbook case where presumed notice is appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thmc1's sockpuppet investigation...REPLY REQUESTED
I need to bring to your attention, or that of any other SysAdmin the ongoing sockpuppet investigation of Thmc1. As you probably already know, Thmc1 was originally blocked by you back in June of 2010. In the current investigation, Kudpung has blocked several IPs used by Thmc1 and even concluded that the suspected accounts are in fact "block evasives" of Thmc1. Nonetheless, he has yet to block those account(s) and is asking for the involvement of another SysAdmin. It's been over a week, and nothing has happened since that time. If possible, could you or another SysAdmin give it a further check? Considering the circumstances that Thmc1 violated the ban and has returned to continue his disruptive edits, I would suggest that you permanently block his accounts, suspected IPs, as well as any other unidentified IPs used by the accounts and other unknown accounts affiliated with them.MBaxter1 (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
' Ankh '. Morpork  12:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)