User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Timotheus Canens. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thank you and a thought
Thank you for commenting on AE in the request involving me. I may not completely agree with your reasoning, but I do appreciate you taking your time to look into the issue nonetheless. On a parting note, here's a mini-essay I wrote that you may find interesting. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Sockpuppet of banned user:loosmark?
Could you please look into User:Hallersarmy? He appeared here: [1]Faustian (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 3 January 2011
- 2010 in review: Review of the year
- In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news
- WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux
- Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year
- Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
no worries ;)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
It has been more than a month
Hi Timotheus, it has been more than a month since you blocked Shuki. The editor accepted the sanction with no complains, and never socked ever since. I believe the editor understood that they done wrong, and will never repeat the behavior that lead to the block. IMO to keep the editor blocked now is a punitive sanction. In the spirit of New Year that is the time of pardons I appeal to you to unblock the editor and to give them the opportunity to show they could productively contribute to the other topics during their topic ban. Thanks for consideration.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have very little tolerance for socking, especially in these highly charged topic areas. If Shuki wants to be unblocked, they can appeal to arbcom or by the normal procedure. T. Canens (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Criticism of The New York Times
Can I have Criticism of The New York Times moved to my user space. The article was deleted but can be worked on with a name change to match the articles on Fox News and on CNN ... and a few more references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Done, you'll find it here, but please don't repost it without making sure you have consensus first. henrik•talk 13:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 January 2011
- News and notes: Anniversary preparations, new Community fellow, brief news
- In the news: Anniversary coverage begins; Wikipedia as new layer of information authority; inclusionist project
- WikiProject report: Her Majesty's Waterways
- Features and admins: Featured topic of the year
- Arbitration report: World War II case comes to a close; ban appeal, motions, and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
a sock of User:Abisharan
Hi Tim, here's yet another sock of User:Abisharan User:Onepurposeoneedit. Regards--Mbz1 (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Alexander Liptak
Be advised, as the blocking admin, that the indef'd user Xanderliptak has been using IP's since his block, one of which (as demonstrated at commons) is 173.24.117.126. Whether you want to take any action on that is up to you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looks stale, anything new? T. Canens (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Unjustified notice
I am very perplexed about the "notice" that you left on my talk page about my editing on so-called "pseudoscience" on the Enneagram of Personality article. This notice is totally unjustified and, as far as I'm concerned, a complete misuse of your privileges and authority as an administrator. All I am "guilty" of is trying to protect this article - which is not objectively "pseudoscience" for your information (it has been taught in the School of Psychiatry at Stanford University - which also co-sponsored the first international conference on it) - from constant ideological POV editing by a disruptive editor who inists that it is. In future I suggest that you try to appreciate what editors are doing before you start issuing erroneous notices. Thank you. Afterwriting (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is valuable information, not presently in the article! If you have good sources for this, you should present them, there William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- You are apparently confused about what the notice means. It does not mean that Enneagram of Personality is pseudoscience. All it means is that (1) there is a pseudoscience-related dispute on the article, which brings it within the purview of the pseudoscience arbitration case; and (2) your behavior in that dispute is inconsistent with the expected standards of behavior, in that you were engaging in edit warring. T. Canens (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Advice on how to undelete a graphic .
Hi, I would like to add this graphic again to the page. The original hand graphic (author unknown) was placed on a public walkway and I took the photo. Please advise how to re-inset and with what copyright info. Thank you.joeu (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
01:30, 8 August 2010 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Tiananmen Hand Poster1.jpg" (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 July 25#File:Tiananmen Hand Poster1.jpg)
- If you don't know the author, you cannot use it under a free license. You may be able to upload and use it as a non-free photo if you think it passes the criteria in WP:NFCC. After reviewing those criteria, if you think the image passes all of them, then go to Wikipedia:Upload, pick the "historically significant fair-use image" option and proceed from there. T. Canens (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 January 2011
- WikiProject report: Talking wicket with WikiProject Cricket
- Features and admins: First featured picture from the legally disputed NPG images; two Chicago icons
- Arbitration report: New case: Shakespeare authorship question; lack of recent input in Longevity case
- Technology report: January Engineering Update; Dutch Hack-a-ton; brief news
request for undeletion the arsenal fc squad nubers page
as a big football enthusiast i would like to bring to your notice the deletion of the page containing old arsenal fc squad numbers and their their present holders.The page was deleted as a result of deeming it of no encyclopedic value.i would suggest that i was a big help knowing the previous unheralded players of arsenal fc all in one page.There i request you to kindly undelete the page
Thanks for considering the request Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.32.148 (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Heads up
You may possibly want to respond to this. Cardamon (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Your JPS block
I saw no consensus for the indef block of JPS in the AN/I discussion. Unless you have some very good reasons not yet published, I will reset it to one year. I would prefer it of you would remove it completely, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Stephan -
- It's an Arbitration Enforcement block. Pursuant to that policy, as listed in the infobox on JPS' talk page, arbcom has established a precedent that unblocks should only happen via appeal to Arbcom or via clear, active, and substantial consensus to unblock on a noticeboard.
- While the ANI discussion does not uniformly support the block, there is nothing vaguely close to a clear, active, or substantial consensus that it's wrong. Please heed the Arbcom policy and leave the block alone unless a consensus develops.
- Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Timothy made it clear that only the first year is under AE restriction and the remainder is not[2]. That's why I will reset the block to the part covered by AE rules. I also think the community should take a long, hard look at that stipulation, but as long as it has not, I intend to abide by it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I certainly object to your use of an alleged lack of consensus in an ANI thread that was closed procedurally as justification for altering a block length (what's next, A opens a block review thread, B closes it procedurally after a comment or two, and A "OMG there's no consensus for the block!"?). It's all semantics, anyway. If he withdraws the threat at any time, he will be unblocked and the topic ban reset to the original expiration. If he doesn't, then there's a threat still outstanding when the block expires, which means that he would be still saying that he will violate a valid topic ban by abusive sockpuppetry, and I would be fully justified in blocking him again. It's a continuing violation until the threat is withdrawn, not unlike legal threats. Oh, and I'm frankly very surprised that socking to evade a topic ban is somehow permissible in your book. T. Canens (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have my doubts about the propriety of that close, but I'm not gonna play domino. With the exception of WP:NLT we don't block people for what they say they might do. And he did not even say he would violate anything - that's purely your (not unjustified, but by no means certain) interpretation. On the other hand, now he is forced to indeed sock if he wants to fix something. You don't change peoples opinion or behaviour by humbling them. Your block forces a good content editor who is not afraid to edit in contentious areas out of the community, instead of offering a reasonable way back. Making it indef makes it even worse. Doing it 5 days after the alleged act makes it very clear that is serves no legitimate purposes, but that you are simply pissed because he does not show enough humility. It's a clumsy way to act in a bad situation. I appreciate your workload, your dedication, and your attempted fairness, but your take Wikipedia down a road I'm no prepared to let it go. We cannot have police-like mechanical enforcement of rules when the rules are arbitrary, changing (with limited consensus) and our "government" has very limited legitimisation, decreasing transparency, and no separation of powers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Look, it's very simple for him to come back. All he need to do is to disable javascript, log in, promise that he will not use proxies, and I'll be more than happy to unblock him. It will take, what, a few minutes on his part? Indeed, I thought that he had a pretty good case that Sandstein's one-year ban was excessive. I even said so when I commented at the original thread. I said it again when he instead decided to appeal on a bunch of spurious procedural ground. And kindly refrain from attributing motives to me. I don't think I ever mentioned the word "humility". It's precisely because he's a good contributor in other areas that I hold off on the block. I was trying - and failing - to convince myself that there's some better alternative. I could think of none. T. Canens (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have my doubts about the propriety of that close, but I'm not gonna play domino. With the exception of WP:NLT we don't block people for what they say they might do. And he did not even say he would violate anything - that's purely your (not unjustified, but by no means certain) interpretation. On the other hand, now he is forced to indeed sock if he wants to fix something. You don't change peoples opinion or behaviour by humbling them. Your block forces a good content editor who is not afraid to edit in contentious areas out of the community, instead of offering a reasonable way back. Making it indef makes it even worse. Doing it 5 days after the alleged act makes it very clear that is serves no legitimate purposes, but that you are simply pissed because he does not show enough humility. It's a clumsy way to act in a bad situation. I appreciate your workload, your dedication, and your attempted fairness, but your take Wikipedia down a road I'm no prepared to let it go. We cannot have police-like mechanical enforcement of rules when the rules are arbitrary, changing (with limited consensus) and our "government" has very limited legitimisation, decreasing transparency, and no separation of powers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Question
Do you mind weighing in on this discussion? You were the admin that imposed my topic ban. I'm curious whether or not List of armed conflicts and attacks, 2011 falls under articles subject to general sanctions. It has been suggested the article is. Also, considering you are familiar my behavioral history, I'd like to know if you think I'm arguing against consensus here.
If you feel uncomfortable with this I totally understand. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't look at your edits, but that article is not per se within the scope of your topic ban. Any portions of the article related to the A-I conflict, however, are within the scope of your ban, but if you stay clear of them there shouldn't be a problem. T. Canens (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- As to the particular content dispute, I think your behavior looks reasonable under all the circumstances, and I think an RFC is probably the best way forward here (I see that someone has already started one). You are correct, I think, that the series of lists should be named consistently, though I voice no opinion on what that name should be. T. Canens (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion was closed by Rd. Thanks for the quick response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 January 2011
- News and notes: Wikimedia fellow working on cultural collaborations; video animation about Wikipedia; brief news
- WikiProject report: Life Inside the Beltway
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: 23 editors submit evidence in 'Shakespeare' case, Longevity case awaits proposed decision, and more
- Technology report: File licensing metadata; Multimedia Usability project; brief news