User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2015/7

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for reduction in protection level
Hello, Tim First all, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to you for your handling of the case at WP:ARBEE. You have assisted in keeping a large part of Wikipedia from being defaced. Now, for the request: Quite a while ago, I first noticed that no changes could be made to the page Mass killings under Communist regimes. I saw no reason to complain about what was clearly a necessary and conensus-based decision. The topic is a controversial one. I briefly left a comment on the article's talk page, inquiring how the page was to be maintained. I surprised as I received largely apathetic reactions that suggested no action was planned for the near future. Still, I held onto my conviction that it was a the best we could do, relying on the extensive arbitration case. And yet, it has now been 4 years since full protection was applied to the article, and 7-8 years since WP:ARBEE was opened. I know "the theory behind the full protection is that it will not stop all progress in developing the article", and I have not changed my sympathetic views on the ARBEE decision (nor am I accusing anyone involved of inappropriate judgment), but progress has left the article little further than it was in 2011. Since then, changes have for the most part been restricted to lay-out fixes, tag adds and removes, and/or source updates - see here. This is perhaps the only political controversy-page in all of Wikipedia that is effectively carved in stone. Consensus requests have been attempted - ineffectively. According to one Wikipedian, his previous attempts to request an Administrator's attention were blocked by one other editor. I fear the article has simply become too vulnerable to stonewalling. I took a look at some of the most (likely to be) vandalized articles on the Wiki (Israel conflict, Russia in Ukraine, Gamergate, Hitler, Muhammad etc.) but found each of these articles under only semi-protection. Furthermore, none of the other articles affected by ARBEE have maintained a full protection.

Finally, WP:NO-PREEMPT argues: ''Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia. Brief periods of full protection are used in rare cases when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article. Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection. Semi-protection is used for articles, such as Jesus, that have a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism.''

Based on the provided rationale, I hereby fervently request a reduction in protection level on the article Mass killings under Communist regimes — from full protection to semi-protection — so we can attempt to restore an article that has become dated with time. Thanks in advance, Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bataaf van Oranje, this is something you need to chat with about; the full protection is there to enforce his underlying sanction posted at the top of the article talk page. T. Canens (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really, in my view. My sanction is an editing restriction. The protection was made by somebody else and I have no opinion on it. Though it is simpler. I don't know whether the sanction is necessary any more, and if it is not, I don't object to it being lifted together with the protection by another admin, for example via WP:RPP.  Sandstein   06:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , the problem that led to the protection was that people were't observing the consensus-before-edit restriction, and we didn't have enough manpower at AE to actively monitor the article and enforce it. We still don't. Hence, I'm not inclined to unprotect the page while the underlying restriction remains in effect. Bataaf van Oranje, if you want the underlying restriction to be lifted too, I'd like to see a discussion at AE, with the other editors of that article being notified and allowed to express their views. T. Canens (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Timotheus as to the problem of lack of manpower at AE. It seems that Mass killings under Communist regimes is a kind of second or third-order article that tries to generalize about a broad set of historical facts. You have to know what a Communist regime is and you need to define mass killings. Is a famine a mass killing (for instance the Holodomor)? What about an intentional famine? How do you know it was intentional?  People on Wikipedia disagree every day about much simpler questions than these. Supposing that you'll get a broad enough editor agreement on a 'generalized' article topic like this one is a stretch. The full protection allows any actual consensus that is reached to be promptly added to the article through the editprotect process. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This article was under extraordinary discretionary sanctions, which amounted to no substantive edits without prior consensus. EE is now under standard DS, so, as I understand it, the template on the article (and any other articles) should be updated.  Given that the situation has changed, the original rationale for protection is now moot, and the page should be unprotected.  If the standard discretionary sanctions are broken, or more importantly normal collaborative editing practices are not adhered to, the appropriate action can be taken, which might well include normal admin. temporary protection to encourage discussion and reduce conflict.  What is needed for this article is more sensible editors like User:Smallbones, nor more "manpower at AE".  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC).

Kissle request
Hello, Timotheus. If Kissle still works on Wikipedia, I'd love to utilize it for new page patrolling. I already do lots of anti-vandal work around Wikipedia; see my CSD log and my userrights. Cheers, Kevin12xd 16:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been maintained in ages, so I strongly recommend against using it. T. Canens (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: there were some recent changes in the API which are likely to have broken non-maintained tools. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC).

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

talk page stalkers
Hello, Timotheus

Doug Weller is an administrator that I believe has made a boo boo. I told him this on his talk page and he then recruited a talkpagestalker for some presumably unknown purpose. (What is a talk page stalker and why does WP have them?

So I picked you (randomly) to ask you to read his talk page and then perhaps tell me to chill and perhaps tell me to apologize. Thank you Raggz (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Sunday August 2: WikNYC Picnic
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)