User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2012/10

Would you please clarify your restriction?

Hi. Here you declare: "No editor may remove content added in compliance with this restriction, unless the removal has been proposed and discussed in the same manner, and either there was no objection, or an uninvolved administrator determines that there's a consensus to remove the content." Does this removal violate your restriction, and if "no", why "no", and if "yes" are you going to enforce the restrictions? Thanks.31.193.133.169 (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, because none of the removed content was "added in compliance with this restriction". T. Canens (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Puppet

There we go again Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lung salad... and again... History2007 (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales

• News and notes: Independent review of UK chapter governance; editor files motion against Wikitravel owners

• Featured content: Mooned

• Technology report: WMF and the German chapter face up to Toolserver uncertainty

• WikiProject report: The Name's Bond... WikiProject James Bond

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom appeal

Sorry I didn't notify you of this before. I was under the (mistaken) impression it was KillerChihuahua who imposed those restriction. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

In this amendment, you provide the edit summary "fix unintended narrowing of 1RR exemption: it should apply to all reverts of edits made in violation, whether the violating edit added or removed instances". Can you explain how a "violating edit" of your restrictions that "removed instances" might arise? Ankh.Morpork 14:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If it removed content added in compliance with the restriction without the required discussion. T. Canens (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI on Maractus and Cupco

Maractus is the ED admin and GNAA associate Meepsheep. He's usually globally blocked on WMF projects on sight. He also owns the domain maract.us under a pseudonym. Cupco has had dozens of previous accounts blocked, including Selery and Nrcprm2026. He doesn't like the GNAA. Meepsheep is happy he's won this battle. Notice his edits 15 minutes apart on enwiki and ED.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FDualus&diff=515989268&oldid=515921033
encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America&diff=prev&oldid=430950
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global/2011-06#Global_lock_for_Meepsheep
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=meepsheep+%22maract.us%22&hl=en&prmd=ivns&filter=0
http://bgp.he.net/dns/maract.us#_whois
2605:6F00:877:0:0:0:B505:DCE6 (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not want to elongate this at WP AE

I do not enjoy seeing my name dragged through AE by Iadrian yu in cases in which he was not involved in any way ,while accusing me of bad faith editing, edit warring, battleground mentality, and making personal attacks on other users he has never ever interacted with.

For this purpose, Iadrian has repeated the phrase "bad faith" so many times that it leads me to think something is up here about bad faith editing, and yet he provided lots of "[diff]s", which simply don't support what he claims they show.

How is it that Iadrian yu is accusing me of battleground mentality, and bad faith acting towards 3 users: User:IRWolfie-, User:Lone boatman ,and User:Cindamuse without his making any attempt to notify either of them about the fact that he lodged a request for arbitration for me in which they are involved.....

If I should make a personal attack on anybody ,(I do not think that was the case), common sense suggets me that the attacked person would be thinking of asking for a remedy for that. In the past, I had a slight disagreement with the aforementioned 3 users that does not have anything to do with Iadrian yu. For the same reason that I could not care less about his interpretation of my editing.

In the first round of accusations, at the 8. line: Iadrian yu accused me of "Bad faith and battleground mentality" to which he provided this diff. In which universe can it be interpreted this way? It was a revert nothing more. And my edit summary for that edit still does not substantiate any of Iadrian yu said. In the second round of his accusation, the 8. line was abandoned. Not that Iadrian yu would have ever edited the article in question.

In the first round of accusations, at the 14. line: Iadrian yu accused me of "Bad faith and battleground mentality" referring to this diff. However, in the second round of accusations, at the 14. line: Iadrian said : "According to Banning policy: When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. - you added an unsourced and badly written data(WP:OR). Also Zboril Are Descendants Of Ilona Szilágyi is badly written and unreferenced (WP:OR)."

So what have "Bad faith and battleground mentality" anything to do with the "Banning banning policy" with respect to what content should be reinserted in Wikipedia?????

In conclude: This is just a disruptive use of WP:AE as a battleground. I would like to invoke : Anyone requesting enforcement who comes with unclean hands runs the risk of their request being summarily denied or being sanctioned themself.

"At the discretion of the administrator processing the request, editors who repeatedly file substantially meritless requests may be sanctioned for disrupting the Arbitration Enforcement process; editors who file clearly groundless, frivolous, vexatious, or bad-faith requests may be similarly sanctioned, even on a first offense."

At WP AE, I pointed out that Iadrian has a long history of requesting blocks for me.[1]

I feel it may be a time that an AE block should be implemented on Iadrian yu, or perhaps an interaction ban between two of us, may also do some good.--Nmate (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles

I was just looking at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles when it was decided to implement 1rr across all articles. You suggested the possibility of exempting reverts of new users from 1rr. I think there is a strong case for making this amendment to the current rules. As they stand the rules are enabling the abusers of sockpuppet accounts to have more impact on article content and discussion than they would have either without any sanctions or with the exemption on reverts of new users.

There is a systematic abuse of sockpuppet accounts in the IP topic area. We cannot even deal with someone who is totally blatant about what he is doing and openly admits he is going to carry on (User:AndresHerutJaim), let alone those who are more subtle and attempt to cover their tracks. I think this amendment would tilt the playing field a little in favor of good faith editors rather than disadvantaging them as the current rules do.

As an aside I really do think we should be doing everything we can to encourage new editors in this topic area, as a lot of the problems are to do with long time users (and their socks). This amendment would not inhibit new users ability to edit compared to experienced editors, it would simply mean their edits could be removed without being subject to 1rr. I think this is a proportionate response to the problems with sock accounts in the topic area. Dlv999 (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this Dlv999. The rules governing the topic area probably need to be adjusted to cope with the sockpuppetry. Many of us have talked about this, although for me at least, it's not exactly clear what should or could be done. Socks are active everyday e.g an AndresHerutJaim sock is active right now, as is a Luke 19 Verse 27/Modinyr/Lutrinae sock, a Historylover4 sock was recently blocked but they are likely to return soon. User:Sean.hoyland/socks has some data on NoCal100 and no doubt that is incomplete. I wouldn't be surprised if a substantial proportion of the total number of edits in the topic area on any given day are by socks. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to apply or modify a topic-wide restriction on my own. You'll need to post at AE, at the very least. T. Canens (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts on what could be done in practice or what has been shown to work elsewhere vs what is unlikely to be possible because it would probably be seen as unprecedented/too draconian etc ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The only seniority-based modified 1RR previously employed are on Israel-related animal conspiracy theories and Nagorno-Karabakh, and they have essentially the same parameters. Anything tighter than that probably won't fly, and even that may be a bit too restrictive if applied across the whole topic. Also, it should go without saying that you need a very strong case of widespread socking to justify employing a restriction like this across the entire topic. T. Canens (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful. The effort involved in preparing data for such a case is probably one of the reasons it hasn't happened yet. It would be a lot easier if I could run SQL on the database directly or load up a local copy into MySQL. Unfortunately I don't think you can just get an export of the data used to generate the revision history pages (for all revisions without any of the page content) for the entire database. That would be a useful export. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Checkout the database dumps. You might find what you need. Or you can check with someone with toolserver access and see if you can get them to run the queries for you. T. Canens (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Sean and like I proposed previously we need some kind of way to restrict socks.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice

This is to notify you of this discussion. Mooretwin (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

• News and notes: Education Program faces community resistance

• WikiProject report: Ten years and one million articles: WikiProject Biography

• Featured content: A dash of Arsenikk

• Technology report: The ups and downs of September and October, plus extension code review analysis

• Discussion report: Closing RfAs: Stewards or Bureaucrats?; Redesign of Help:Contents

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Timotheus Canens. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation.
Message added 03:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Mabeenot (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Again?

look, count thanks, think, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix Prize for Spiritual Art

Hi Tim, I'm helping with WikiProject Merge's backlog of articles to be merged after AfD, and I came across Phoenix Prize for Spiritual Art, whose AfD you closed as merge. AfD isn't a ballot, of course, but I see three keep votes and two merge votes, with one of the merge votes also indicating support for keeping the article. No one besides the nominator indicated support for deletion. Our backlog is pretty clogged since, unlike delete votes, closing administrators don't perform merges when an AfD closes that way; this one has sat there with its {{afd-merge to}} for over two years. I was wondering if you'd be willing to reassess that discussion as a keep. I'm not sure that's kosher, but deletion review seems extreme in this case. Thanks, BDD (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at it again and I'll have to stick with my original close. Two of the keeps (Peter Ellis and Pdfpdf) are entitled to very little weight. T. Canens (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Tait

The Douglas_Tait_(stuntman) article that you sent to AfD was recretaed earlier this year. I again sent it to AfD, but there was no consensus (largely because some editors found relied on covereage in "articles" that have since been disavowed by the newspaper whose website they were posted on, so I think another AfD is a good idea). Anyway, the article again served as a promotional piece with many "references" to non-RSs, etc. My efforts to keep it from being used as that have been called into question by a disruptive IP. Would you mind taking a look at this ANI and posting you thoughts? Thanks. Novaseminary (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I misread. You actually closed the AfD and deleted, but obviously did not bring to to AfD. Sorry for any confusions, though of course, you thoughts at ANI woudl still be welcome. Novaseminary (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You didn't list all the socks

You might want to list the number of socks he has admitted to at least. That number being 44. [2] Put that information on the top just to show people how serious of a problem this is. Dream Focus 21:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What I included in the list was (1) two historical accounts of particular relevance (D, MD), (2) the later three accounts that I'm aware of with a substantial number of edits (JM, A, BR) and (3) the two accounts that was the direct cause of the community ban request (TB, BB). I'm not convinced that it's really necessary to list all 44, especially since most of them predates BR. T. Canens (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to list all the names, just mention he had 44 sockpuppets, most of them after he was told the first time to stop doing that. Dream Focus 22:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

117Avenue

Hello. I still have some unanswered questions about my block, could you please respond? Please excuse the tone, I shouldn't have wrote while angry. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

• Op-ed: AdminCom: A proposal for changing the way we select admins

• In the media: Wikipedia's language nerds hit the front page

• Featured content: Second star to the left

• News and notes: Chapters ask for big bucks

• Technology report: Wikidata is a go: well, almost

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemicals

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion

FYI, the user here is User:46.7.113.111, who you blocked last night: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blatant_sock. --RA (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

AE Courtesy Message

As we discussed a little while ago, I've requested that the sanctions were uplifted. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 13:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I see my request was archived without comment, does that mean it was lifted? Wee Curry Monster talk 08:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

No, just the bot being an idiot...I've unarchived the threads. If no one else comments in a couple more days, I'll lift it. T. Canens (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject:Articles for Creation October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban

TM, editors are usually allowed to state their case in an administrative forum without fearing sanction for doing so. I stated my case. I otherwise have not followed Mathsci around WP nor have I edited topics that he edits. Is it because I argued in my evidence section that you and the other administrators had been had by his effective use of the bear poking tactic that you are reacting so angrily and defensively? Cla68 (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

One other thing...why did you close the AE action so quickly after I posted my full evidence? The other admins didn't have a chance to see it. I would have liked them to see it and comment on it. Perhaps they would have voted to ban me, perhaps they would have agreed with your take, perhaps they would have been convinced by my argument. We don't know, however, because you closed the action almost as soon as I posted my section. Why couldn't the other participating admins be allowed to see it and comment? I don't know if you realize, that there is nothing more frustrating for editors than to try to present their side in a debate, only to have their voice shut down without a fair hearing. Cla68 (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you saw my response to you on my page. Is this interaction ban a mutual interaction ban where Mathsci is not able to interact with me either? If not, would you please make it a mutual interaction ban?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

There are three one-way interaction bans logged at WP:ARBR&I which apply to you, to Zeromus1 and to Cla68. [3] You can appeal the ban in the standard way. While the ban is in force, however, any attempt to discuss me in any way at all on any page of wikipedia, including the current request above, would constitute a violation of the ban. If that violation were reported at WP:AE, your account would almost certainly be blocked. I am not going to report you this time, but please try to be more careful in future. You have to stop mentioning me anywhere on wikipedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You are named in an Arbcom request

Here. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

• Special report: Examining adminship from the German perspective

• Arbitration report: Malleus Fatuorum accused of circumventing topic ban; motion to change "net four votes" rule

• Technology report: Wikivoyage migration: technical strategy announced

• Discussion report: Good articles on the main page?; reforming dispute resolution

• News and notes: Wikimedians get serious about women in science

• WikiProject report: Where in the world is Wikipedia?

• Featured content: Is RfA Kafkaesque?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

SPI help?

Hi. I was wondering if there might be some way I could get involved in the SPI process. I've skimmed through WP:SPI/C. I hope I'm not getting in over my head by asking about this. :-) — Richwales 06:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We should be taking on a batch of new trainee clerks pretty soon. Feel free to post on WP:SPI/CN if you are interested. T. Canens (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows CE 3.0

Hello. It has been shown at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MountWassen that this Afd you closed yesterday is based on sockpuppetry. The nominator VictorVautier and a !voter Akolyth have been CU-confirmed. So while the nomination and the outcome seem to be justified, this should perhaps be reviewed for procedural reasons. De728631 (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Was Pi network moved or fully deleted?

Hello, Timotheus Canens. You have new messages at Talk:Pi_network.
Message added 18:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

• News and notes: First chickens come home to roost for FDC funding applicants; WMF board discusses governance issues and scope of programs

• WikiProject report: In recognition of... WikiProject Military History

• Technology report: Improved video support imminent and Wikidata.org live

• Featured content: On the road again

• Recent research: WP governance informal; community as social network; efficiency of recruitment and content production; Rorschach news

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)