Jump to content

User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Warpath (Transformers)

You closure of the Deletion review for Warpath (Transformers) didn't mention the new sources, which was the primary reason for the review. The sock puppetry was secondary. We have lots of articles deleted after sock puppetry, but this one was brought up because it also had new sources, and the reason given for the deletion decision was the lack of sources. Mathewignash (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I did. Last sentence. T. Canens (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean "No consensus to permit recreation.", If the reason it was deleted was for lacking sources, despite having popular keep support in the nomination, they surely a ton of new sources would indicate it should get another AFD, wouldn't it? Also, wouldn't there also be "no concensus" to keep the article deleted? Mathewignash (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
When you bundle unrelated issues like that, you are bound to get a confusing debate. The endorsement of the AfD closure means that there is, or was, a consensus to delete it. So the status quo is that the article is deleted, and you need a DRV consensus to recreate it without fear of G4 (or you can try and see if someone will G4 it...). T. Canens (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm trying to learn so I so this right the next time. I still don't quite understand your defintion of concensus, as I see maybe 4 or 5 people endorsing the delete votes, and 9 or 10 saying the article should be restored or relisted for a new AFD. Can you explain that? Two to one isn't concensus? Because to me it looks like the majority want to give it a new AFD. Also, what is G4? Mathewignash (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:CSD#G4, aka {{db-repost}}. You are counting apples and oranges together.

We got several people (like Jclemens) who said that it should be overturned because the nomination is by a sockpuppet, but most people did not agree. That's the first part of my close: the AfD close is endorsed. Then on to the question of whether the userspace draft should be restored. A number of people limited their comments to the sockpuppet point so their comments shed no light on this question. Among the people who actually commented on the new draft, there's no consensus that the draft should be restored to mainspace. T. Canens (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that a third of people said they wanted it restored for reason A, a third wanted it for reason B, and a third wanted it not restored at all, and since you won't count the A and the B together, they loose? I don't think that's legitmate since those who voted against it simply because it's a sock puppet nomination also wanted it to go to another AFD, which implies they think it MAY stand up for an AFD this time based on the new draft. I repeatedly pointed out in my posts that this nomination was about the new sources. Anyways, if this is all about having two reasons for restoration that you won't count together, then would I be allowed to start a new deletion review where it is made clear that isn't ONLY based on the new draft and not the sock puppetry so we can get a clear concensus on only that subject? I'd like to do it according to the rules here and didn't mean to cause confusion. Mathewignash (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
DRV is not a vote, so it is necessary to consider the arguments. "Keep deleted because I don't like the subject" or "restore I like it very much" is worth approximately nothing. It's not like anything stopped them from commenting on the draft. They for whatever reason chose not to do so, so I can't say that there is a consensus that the draft is acceptable. There's enough discussion on the draft to determine the consensus (or lack thereof) regarding it, so I don't think an immediate renomination is a good idea. T. Canens (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so when is it a good idea? After an amount of time, or perhaps after a number of new sources are added? Mathewignash (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Either after some time (say, a month), or after you discover some new sources (preferably superior to the ones currently in the draft, since those are not persuasive to many people right now). T. Canens (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The quality of the sources isn't really going to matter. There are a couple of Anti-Transformers fanatics who will ALWAYS say the character isn't notable. They seem to be professional nay-sayers, but I'll do my best. I have another character who has more sources added, and I won't mention the sock puppet attack in the request for him to get undeleted. Mathewignash (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:BAN

Sir, I request that you review your closure for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 21 Warpath (transformers) on the dimension of WP:BAN. 

WP:BAN states regarding banned editors, "the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing".  While the policy does not require edits to be reverted, [WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors] clarifies, "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert" and makes it clear that any individual can make the decision to revert.  Editors at the DRV showed basic misunderstandings of WP:BAN policy, for example, this stated, "We are not compelled to undo productive edits by a banned user if we don't want to"; but this is not a community decision, any one editor has the authority to "compel" a revert, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban."  By whatever authority I have as an individual editor to compel a revert of the first edit of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Warpath_(Transformers) by a banned editor under WP:BAN, I do so.

I count five !votes in favor of WP:BAN and five !votes against (I ignored obscenity-laced !votes), but WP:BAN is policy that is already defined as having strong community consensus.  Further, the arguments of those opposed to WP:BAN were heavily diminished during the DRV, such as the idea that keeping editor's comments in an edit history is related to the continuance of an AfD.  I showed that it is current practice to stop an AfD because of contributions by a banned user, even when doing so takes down dozens of !votes from the AfD.  The idea that a !vote is a terrible thing to waste was disproven both by the previous example, plus I gave an example in which ten AfD keep !votes were put down eight days later by a single editor by starting a new AfD.  I showed that a "Speedy Keep" criteria being used against the policy was just a guideline and of questionable quality.  I also noted that a procedural closure of an AfD allows a new AfD to be re-opened immediately.

WP:BAN is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."  Do you agree that administrators should normally follow WP:BAN?  I request in accordance with WP:BAN that you reclose the September AfD with a "procedural closure" under the current guideline.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so you can revert the edit by deleting the nomination statement (which the closer disregarded anyway, and is in any event quite weak). So what? The subsequent delete !votes do not magically disappear simply because you deleted the nomination. T. Canens (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the why hesitation with letting the AFD be redone freshly if someone wants to AFD it, while new people can base their opinions on the current draft of the article. There has been shown to be some support for the new draft by editors. If the new draft doesn't get enough support to be kept, then we can't complain about the article being deleted. Mathewignash (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

afd for ch

Hi, I have a couple of questions about the closed AFD for [Ch Interpreter]. Your help is appreciated in advance.

1) At the end with your close, I still don't know if the two articles published in peer-reviewed journals and written by Harry Cheng's colleagues who worked together before can be used as secondary sources or not? I believe nobody will consider them as primary sources. If they cannot be considered as secondary sources, what kinda of source should they be treated? it means they are no source and cannot be included in wiki no matter if their papers contains positive or negative comments. Am I right? Consensus cannot override the wiki policy guideline. If I understand correctly, the conclusion of no consensus means nobody knows those publications can be treated as secondary sources or not unless the wiki policy guideline can be made more clear next time. otherwise, we should have a clear conclusion of either keep or overturn at the end based on so many reliable sources. Right?

2) Can the peer-reviewed papers published in journals by primary source with non-trivial coverage be used as a basis along with others verifiable sources to form an article in wiki? Or those journal articles are treated the same as self-publications?

3) For the software notability, should we follow the Notability for (organizations and companies) WP:CORPDEPTH or General Notability WP:GNG especially when they are not consistent as argued in the AFD? Do you think they are not consistent or maybe we need a Notability guideline for software specifically? Thanks. Chuser (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As you have noticed, I've amended the close. S Marshall is right that the original close was, let's just say, not my finest moment.

No consensus means exactly that. There's no agreement on whether Cheng's papers can be used to establish notability. In any event, we don't do precedent, and this is a rather broad question, and won't really be resolved by a DRV with relatively limited participation. If you want a definitive conclusion, you might want to start an WP:RFC at WT:GNG on this question. (It may or may not work, though.)

The general view seems to be that peer reviewed sources are more reliable than self-published sources. Of course, particular sourcing decisions are highly context-dependent.

I don't think they are meant to be inconsistent (note that this is my personal view, and others may disagree). Now the problem is that unlike law, our guidelines (and policies too, for that matter), are not fixed and change - sometimes rather extensively - over time. Seizing on any particular phrasing is, in my view, rather unhelpful. T. Canens (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. thanks for the update and your information. One more question. Can Cheng's papers published in journal be used as reference along with others in the article writing? Chuser (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
There should not be a problem using those papers as sources. T. Canens (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
True, and no one should imagine this was ever in doubt. From WP:CORPDEPTH, notability requires secondary sources. But once notability has been established, primary sources can be used to establish other claims in the article. Msnicki (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Good for you!

Good for you! I am glad at least somebody could count on a fair trial. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How broad is broad?

I would like to ask just how broad this will be construed? I have a request to help a fellow editor with an article on the Battle of Villaviciosa, which is part of the War of the Spanish Succession. The relationship to Gibraltar is tangential and oblique but broadly construed was previously held to include HMS Tireless (S88) on the basis it had docked in Gibraltar. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If the only mention of Gibraltar is in a navigation template then it should not be a problem. T. Canens (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:Ban continued (ref: User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/5#Warpath (Transformers))

To respond to your question, it is the AfD nomination that is reverted.  There is no AfD.  The point was a minor one to prevent a wikilawyering theory for not supporting WP:BAN, that being that no one had technically invoked WP:BAN.

WP:BAN is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."  Do you agree that you closed against policy?  WP:BAN states regarding banned editors, "the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing".  Please discuss how you can close the way that you did with the raw !vote evenly divided to support WP:BAN.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not agree, and you are free to request review of the close at WP:AN. T. Canens (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Kevin W.'s rollback

A month or so ago, you revoked Kevin W.'s rollback; now, he's asking to have it back, saying that you agreed he could apply for it after a month. Before granting his request, I'd like to hear your opinion on this. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 02:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Rollback is easy-come, easy-go, and it does look like an isolated incident, so I have no problem with letting him have it back this once. T. Canens (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Dberesser continues

Maybe you can speak to Debresser nicley and tell him to stop continuing his editing before concensus on the issue has been reached? [1], [2], [3], [4], (these edits made as soon as his topic banned had ended.) Chesdovi (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:AE#Debresser, where there is now mention of a negotiation at Category talk:16th-century Palestinian rabbis. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Query

Please explain how revoking talk page access for User:Abd protects Wikipedia from harm. Thank you. →StaniStani  01:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Same reason as revoking talk page access from vandals and trolls who abuse their talk page: it makes clear that such behavior is unacceptable, and ensures that the time of the volunteers is not wasted by the abuse. T. Canens (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
*scratches his head* I don't understand how volunteers' time is wasted by Abd commenting on his talk page. Please clarify. →StaniStani  08:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Same way volunteer's time is wasted by trolling on the talk page of any blocked user.

If you are trying to convince me that the talk page access should be restored, I can safely say that you will not find what you seek here. WP:AN is that way if you want a review of my actions. T. Canens (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not trying to convince you to do anything. I was trying to have you convince me that you had a good reason. You didn't convince me at all. I won't waste your time further. →StaniStani  22:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
It makes clear that spitting on our community norms is unacceptable, and therefore deters incidents of future misconduct by other users, which wastes volunteer time. One Abd is already a massive time-sink; we don't need another. Again, if you want a review, WP:AN is that way. T. Canens (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a bit more of a coherent reply, although I reserve the right to disagree that Abd was spitting on anything except the hypocrisy with which he was treated. Abd had some goals in examining and trying to correct faults in the governance of Wikipedia. He was eccentric, long-winded, and I suppose anyone opposing him could claim he was wasting their time. But now a critic has been silenced, and Wikipedia's powers that be have pushed him into the 'vandal' category. That is a waste. I thank you for responding politely, and will leave your page with one last thought: if allowing Abd to speak out on his user page is a waste of time, to be quickly quenched, what is this? →StaniStani  05:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement - Gibraltar

Thank you very much. I completely agree with this final result. We were engaged in a very vicious circle and I think this will help us out.

I only have a couple of questions:

  1. We are now participating in a discussion in the NPOVN (Due weight and numbers of sources) regarding certain methodology which -no unsurprisingly for us- uses an example from a discussion regarding some historical event in Gibraltar between 1600 AD and 1900 AD. But I think the methodology is interesting on its own. One editor (J. Johnson) is acting as a mediator and I think we are getting somewhere. Would it be all right if we continue participating in that discussion?
  2. I think that we would be able to reach an agreement if some admin acts as a referee in the RfC (setting up some very simple rules for our participation, such as -e.g.- a limited number of words in the introduction to the RfC and so on). Could you help us find someone who can do so?

Thank you again. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

One more thing: about one third of the discussion has dealt with events happening between 1960 and 2011 (the events that happened after the Spanish claims were "resurrected" in the 60s: the UN non-self governing territories list, Spain's claims in the 60s, the referendum of 1969, the Spanish embargo, the constitutional orders of 1968 and 2006...) Is there any reason why the restriction is limited up to 1900? Should it include that period as well? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
1. The four of you can consider that particular discussion exempted from the discussion restriction.

2. Maybe ask on AN to see if there is any volunteers?

Your dispute seems to be primarily about events that happened in the 18th Century, so I took that and added a century on both sides just to be safe. This is obviously not a license to start new lengthy quarrels over events not covered in the time period. T. Canens (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Improper deletion

On what policy basis was this speedy deleted? There were a substantial number of merge votes, and a substantial number of deletion calls were "OMG it is a dog!". The material was verified and factual. You are quite entitled to believe it should be deleted, and opine as such. I, however, see no basis for you to enforce your view by terminating the process early. What's your hurry? Speedy closing when there's no rush simply wastes everyone's time. Now, you can reverse this, or it can go to DRV and be overturned and we can have a second AFD. If you object to this article being here, and think it should be deleted quickly and with minimum time wasted, I suggest your best strategy is to undelete and let the debate finish.--Scott Mac 09:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Otto (Middleton family dog)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Otto (Middleton family dog). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Scott Mac 19:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hello, Tim. Sorry to bother you. I am afraid that there could be some WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF issues in following comments, specifically:

Such phrases do not contribute to constructive WP:DR process, imho. The page in question is under ARBPIA sanctions, and such lapses in civility are liable to result in bans, I believe. Could you please share your thoughts? Best regards, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Banning users for occasional lapses is generally counterproductive, especially when from what I can see the discussion seems to be still ongoing. T. Canens (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, an occasional lapse could be an honest mistake. I have warned the editor in question on their talk page. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Another lapse, warned on editor talk page here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:DTTR. T. Canens (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Following Jimbo Wales example here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed warning at WP:AE

Please see TFD's arbitration enforcement appeal, where you commented previously. Fred Bauder has offered the text of a warning that would be logged in the case. See if you agree. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

Edit Filter Apology

Hello, I apologize for triggering the edit filter. I had read about the edit filter and wanted to see it in action. Why did you erase my edits on my talk page?

Have a nice day! 99.150.255.75 (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Afd top

After you made the revert, the same problem is happening again. The problem is not my personal problem, it is something affecting Wikipedia and our readers and editors. It is necessary to fix the problem instead of a simple revert. --Reference Desker (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

First, that would not fix the problem on existing pages, since the template is substituted, not transcluded. Second, that makes it out of sync with all the other xfd top templates (e.g., {{tfd top}}, {{mfd top}}, etc.). Third, it breaks scripts such as User:Mr.Z-man/hideClosedAFD.js, which is used by a good number of AfD closers. So, no, it's not a good idea. The proper fix is to fix what is actually broken - i.e., the Book generator, not to break something else. T. Canens (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Then what should be done? I am not well-versed on technical issues, can you send a message to fix the book generator, thanks. --Reference Desker (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I got someone who's familiar with the book generator to take a look at it. Might take a while to fix, though. T. Canens (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Corbridge sock investigation

Thanks for your attention to this case. Any way you could also tag and block (at least temporarily) the anon IP 98.196.129.137 (mentioned in the previous investigation)? That account still appears to be recently active. Arbor8 (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Email re SPI

Per your request here, I have sent you an email. nableezy - 19:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And in case it was not obvious, I specifically request that you not forward that to users that are not CUs or SPI clerks. Thank you. nableezy - 20:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. I've never forwarded SPI-related emails before, and do not anticipate doing so anytime soon. T. Canens (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

SPI case

Hello Timotheus,

This regards the closure of this case. There is some evidence that was submitted after the CU but that has not been reviewed. I would be satisfied if an admin reviewed the evidence before fully closing the investigation.

Regards 00:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your action Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omer123hussain now shows in the list.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 06:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Immediate Attention Required

Hello, Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

N419BH 06:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Closure of request of modification of topic ban

I was just requesting to do a small modification of the edit count so that I can continue working on out of the reach articles/articles nobody is interested on working on. I believe that those cases are clear enough to be of exception to the topic ban. Pls reopen your closure. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 16:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

But he closed it. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Change_conditions_of_topic_ban
Have you any idea of how juvinile and clueless immediately appealing a topic ban like that makes you look? Then to come and ask the closing admin again? Have you any idea how disruptive your actions are and how wasteful of more productive editors' time this is? Spartaz Humbug! 17:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The closing admin said to make another AN case. See http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:ErrantX#Non_frree_images --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 17:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No. What Spartaz says. T. Canens (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

iPad 2 DR

It's the best venue and specifically advised at WP:SALT. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_April_14. Marcus Qwertyus 07:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

But it's not creation-protection. It's a full protection on a redirect. For the April one you have an A10 which takes it into DRV's jurisdiction. Here there's no action at all related to deletion. T. Canens (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Does it really matter? The intricities of the situation are irrelevant if the rules are malleable. Best way forward is DR which has worked well in the past. Marcus Qwertyus 07:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
In the end, DRV does not handle redirect or merge discussions on talk pages, or (except for salting, but then a deletion is almost always involved anyway) protections. IAR is for the rare cases; this as far as I can tell is a run-of-the-mill protection dispute. There is an alternative venue here, which in all likelihood will get this sorted out well before DRV's 7 days (at least to me the issue is quite clear-cut: the protection is triply wrong; I've left a note on their talk page about this). T. Canens (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. If HereToHelp does not reverse his action I will prepare a case for ANI and expedite the de-sysoping process for HereToHelp. Marcus Qwertyus 07:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that you'll see a desysop out of this. T. Canens (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

iPad 2

I have unprotected the page. HereToHelp (talk to me) 14:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Mail

I have sent you two mails, please read them as soon as possible. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem was taken care of, you can disregard the mails. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Interaction bans and socking

Hello Tim. Let's pretend for a second that an editor is banned from interacting with me. If it could be conclusively shown that this editor would follow me to multiple articles and edit them only as an IP, would that be a violation of said ban? nableezy - 16:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. T. Canens (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Ive sent you an email regarding this because it involved associating a user with an IP. Thanks, nableezy - 18:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

twinkleprod.js reccomendation

I recently forked your version of twinkleprod to add to the menu item "PROD & Log" instead of "PROD". This makes it easier to figure out which version is going to run if you have the main twinkle running and twinkleprod running as well. Thank you for doing most of the heavy lifting with this and allowing me to extend it for my usage. Hasteur (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A suspected sock

Dear Timotheus,

As an admin who analysed the Marknutley/Tentontunic case could you please have a look at one more IP [5] who insists they are not the sock?

  • Pro: The absence of capital letters, problems with punctuation, specific language (especially "commie", and some other rude epithets), anti-Communism and the British origin of this IP indicate that the edits have been made by Marknutley/Tentontunic.
  • Contra: The user insists they are not a sock.
    Thank you in advance,
    Sincerely, --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi Tim, a few times you allowed Nab to email you the evidences for SPI. May I also email you some evidences on the case that I cannot file because of my ban? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. T. Canens (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, email sent. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Given recent checkuser findings, these are likely to be unrelated. Different ISP. T. Canens (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Tim. I sent you one more email. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

AE action against Gilabrand

I'm sure it was just an oversight, but the two links in the sentence "Further, the IP has made this edit, which is, in part, a revert of this edit by Nableezy, which violates their interaction ban." are to the same diff. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! T. Canens (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks for Gilabrand:

From the log of WP:ARBPIA:

  • Per AE thread, Gilabrand (talk · contribs) is limited to one revert per rolling 24-hour period per article on all articles within the area of conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, until 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC). Furthermore, they are required to discuss any reverts they do make on the talk page, in English, within 30 minutes of the revert, excepting reverts of obvious (as in, obvious to someone who has no knowledge of the subject) vandalism, as defined in WP:VAND. T. Canens (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

So what I get from this: Gilabrand three-month block, which was never lifted, ran from 12/18/2010 until 3/18/2011. Then on 3/18, her 1RR in 24 hours went automatically back into effect. The end date of the ban was 5/1 or 2 months after the block was lifted, and the earlier of the two is 5/1.

Do you agree? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is the correct reading. T. Canens (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Block of Omer123hussain

Blocking this user indefinitely seems really rather excessive given they are a new editor and they have made lots of good content contributions, can you reconsider the duration? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Is being new a good reason to be violators of more than one policies after all we all have been new at one or another point of time and we didn't started our career by SP, canvassing, abusing, etc. Additionally user didn't paid heed to suggestions given to him by various other editors. User's talk page and article talk pages where user has been involved may be referenced for details. If in any case block is reduced to finite term (which I don't suggest) the user should be explained that he should take a deep breath and try to understand the WP & it's working before hitting the pedal.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 18:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The reason it shouldn't be indefinite is that people make mistakes. Besides User:BabbaQ was only given a week block for sockpuppetting, and he hasn't even got the excuse of being new. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
That argument might be stronger if I was the one who blocked BabbaQ. Anyway, I'll get a checkuser to take another look. T. Canens (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
To an extent admin discretion is a fair point; however it doesn't stretch between a week and an indefinite block. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Of note per the policy Wikipedia:BLOCK#Duration_of_blocks it appears a 24 hour block is generally considered appropriate for first time policy violations. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry blocks has always been longer, for the simple reason that while it is possible to, say, unintentionally breach 3RR in the heat of the moment, you can't unintentionally operate sockpuppets, especially not over a period of time. It's categorically different. I'm disinclined to reduce the block length when the user isn't even admitting it. Between the similar interests, the similar edit summary style, and the checkuser findings, there's not much room for doubt that these are the same person. T. Canens (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
isn't even admitting, yes that is also one of the characterstics of the user which have raised concern. The user doesn't seems to admit anything and at most of times tried to hide behind new curtain. IMO & observation this user itself may be SP of some older user because at times the conversation from the user seemed to be quite mature for new user e.g. from initial days onwards the user asked for guidelines & policies from other editors to support their acction & views, I have rarely seen such requests from new users. If the user was aware that for any action & iew you need to have some WP policy &/or guideline in support then the user must also be aware that the same applies on the actions & views of the user. Also new users are rarely seen doing canvassing & propaganda campaign amongst other users for support, etc. IMO user seems to be well aware of the WP policies & guidelines (at least general ones) and was just trying to play dirty game on excuse of being new.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 10:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Appeal notice

I'm supposed to notify an admin who imposed sanctions according to the template. Here is the thread: link. No rush, whenever you have the time to weigh in. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi, I would like to draw your attention to this edit, where the author particularly says "Author Hovann Simonian does not count at all as he is an Armenian." I assume it is unacceptable to disregard the source based on ethnicity. So in order to prevent any further commments of the sort, your comment would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Ashot  (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

How do I requet for a discretionary exemption for my current editing restriction, can I ask any uninvolved admin or is it only arbcom members? Wee Curry Monster talk 08:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Any uninvolved admin. T. Canens (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Belarusian Nature and Environment Museum

Thanks for sorting that one out; I was just a bit busy at the time. And, thanks for helping w/ js for Sage Ross, the other day, too. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:Omer123hussain#Looking_at_this_again's talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Anti-flame barnstar

The Anti-Flame Barnstar
For collapsing a way-overblown ANI thread. Thank you for fighting the drama. Swarm X 07:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Foreign language articles again

Any chance that you can deal with Hercules Fahrrad GmbH & Co and Degen Earthfast (talk · contribs) who clearly doesn't get the copyright issues and is I believe about to start an edit war. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebe123 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Timeshift9

Was there really "consensus" for deletion? I would assert that 10 in favour of deletion and 7 against deletion is nowhere near "consensus". If you are making an admin decision to delete the page due to policy violation, that's fine, but the parent page implies that consensus is required for deletion. --Surturz (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thankfully, admins are supposed to actually weigh the arguments made rather than simply counting noses. I find the arguments to keep to be substantially weaker than those to delete. If you disagree, you can seek review of my closure at WP:DRV. T. Canens (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
my complaint is not that you made a ruling. It is that you made a ruling, but give the impression that you are merely implementing a WP:CONS decision. --Surturz (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block of User:Omer123hussain.The discussion is about the topic User:Omer123hussain. Thank you. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 26#University_of_California_Anti-Chinese_racism_.28closed.29

Heh, we just edit-conflicted on closing this. Stifle (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? :) T. Canens (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#MarshallBagramyan

Dear administrator,

I am not really sure if you are in fact an administrator at AE or not, but I am posting this message anyway since I found your name among the decision-making administrators in AE cases. If it's not too much to ask, could you please review the AE case on MarshallBagramyan? The whole case is based on an imposed indefinite restriction for not labeling authors any names or dismissing them based on their nationality, place of birth or publication, ethnic group, religion or similar general characteristic (and the report clearly said “This restriction is to be enforced by blocks or other discretionary sanctions”) and violation of another topic ban earlier in 2010 when the user violated his ban twice and went unnoticed? The reported user MB has taken this report out of context by posting long blocks of replies which had already wrote last time he was reported and diverting the attention of the readers and administrator away from the subject which is an imposed ban and his violation of it. All I am asking is for administrators to take action on the violation of restriction for fair and just decision. Angel670 talk 17:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Hello T. Canens,

I am convinced that Doktor Plumbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of Sulmues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Sulmuesi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (remember him?). I have filed an SPI here [6]. Given that you are familiar with Sulmues and an SPI expert, I would be much obliged if you could have a look at it. Best, Athenean (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

CU seems to have cleared it up, unless you want me to also check if there's a behavioral link to Sulmues(i)?. T. Canens (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE

I hope that my Herculean effort at closing AE cases has been noted by those who, ahem, sometimes contribute there Your contribution on the tough cases is noted and appreciated. *All* uninvolved admins are politely invited to look at the one case still open at the moment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have been closed by AGK. Anyway, your work there is definitely greatly appreciated :). T. Canens (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens/Archives/2011/5&oldid=1188540984"