Wikipedia

User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2012/6

< User talk:Timotheus Canens | Archives | 2012
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Ggarver in topic Some baklava for you!


Articles for deletion/Leslie Daigle (2nd nomination)

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
My talk page is not the place for a mini-DRV.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I would have relisted this AfD, rather than close it as delete, because the new sources that were presented later in the discussion significantly demonstrate the topic's notability per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Also, it appears that this AfD may have been closed based upon an !vote count, against the guideline polling is not a substitute for discussion, because additional time wasn't given for further discussion based upon the new reliable sources presented in the discussion. If you check the dates in the discussion, notice how the regional coverage I provided from The Orange County Register was after all of the delete !votes occurred. The topic actually passes WP:BASIC, WP:GNG and criteria #3 of WP:POLITICIAN, and as such, is clearly worthy of a stand-alone article in Wikipedia.

Importantly, during the AfD discusison the article was fully protected, in which no users other than Wikipedia administrators could edit the article, and it is possible that people may have based their !votes upon sources only in the article rather than upon the availability of reliable sources. It's more user-friendly to not delete articles in AfD while they're locked down, because unfortunately, many people seem to base their opinions about topic notability upon the state of articles, rather than the availability of sources (see: WP:NRVE). This is an ongoing problem I've noticed for quite some time.

I am considering posting a Deletion review for this closure. Since the DRV page instructions here are to speak with the closer first about the matter, this post is being placed here in congruence with those instructions.

At any rate, if you agree with my rationale, is it at all possible to simply undo the AfD discussion closure, restore the article to allow improvements, and allow further discussion to occur, or does the DRV process have to occur? Please respond at your earliest convenience regarding this matter, and thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

More information

  • More sources:
  • Michael J. Mishak; Anthony York (May 19, 2012). "Centrist GOP candidates may offer chance to end California gridlock". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
  • Mona Shadia (May 16, 2012). "Mansoor accuses opponent of willingness to work with unions". Huntington Beach Independent. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
  • Martin Wisckol (May 17, 2012). "Benefactor now up to $270k for Assembly candidate Daigle". Orange County Register. Retrieved 2012-05-24. Daigle...would be the favorite to beat Rush in a one-on-one race and could be a formidable opponent for Mansoor in a head-to-head matchup.
  • Jeff Overley (February 2, 2010). "Political cash flows in Newport Beach". The Orange County Register. Retrieved 2012-05-24.
  • Brianna Brialla (February 06, 2009). "Dredging banking on stimulus funds. City officials have estimated as much as $16 million is needed to complete the project in Newport Bay, Harbor". Daily Pilot. A Los Angeles Times Website. Retrieved 2012-05-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
—Northamerica1000(talk) 01:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Additional new sources This regional coverage further demonstrates the topic's notability, in which the topic clearly passes WP:BASIC, WP:GNG and criteria #3 of WP:POLITICIAN:
These could have been used to expand and improve the article, once the article's full page protection had been lifted. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

AfD nominator comment

As the nominator of the AfD, I am strongly opposed to Northamerica's attempt to ignore such a strong consensus. I oppose you recreating the article, and will endorse deletion in any DRV for four reasons; three minor and one major. The minor ones first:

  1. This typically isn't subject matter we have on Wikipedia: Assemblywomen and City Councilmen in very large cities, yes. Assembly candidates and City Councilmen in medium-sized cities, no. This is borne about by WP:POLITICIAN
  2. There really isn't much content to save: About the only thing the editors can agree on is that Daigle is a City Councilwoman and is running for State Assembly. The rest of the content has been challenged on BLP, NPOV and even COPYVIO concerns, making it a borderline CSD candidate. The dispute over the content led to the article being fully protected, and recreating the article would just lead to more unnecessary WikiDrama. Much better to start from scratch than recreate an article with so much challenged content.
  3. The references were there, and people still voted against keeping it: Well before the AfD was closed, there were lists of references in the article (i.e. the ones there before the goldlock), in the AfD, and in the AfD's talk page. At least two editors reaffirmed their votes at the AfD after these were posted, another reaffirmed his vote on another user's talk page.

Now the major one:

4. There was a strong consensus against keeping the article: With more than a dozen firmly-established editors participating, not keep opinions outnumbered keep ones by more than 2:1. There's no way with that strong a consensus for not keeping, the article could've been kept

I strongly urge you to not recreate the article pbp 13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You are asking me to entertain the notion, that a number of very experienced editors, many of whom are regular AFD commenters, are somehow unfamiliar with the standards usually employed at AFD? I don't find that a plausible argument. The notability guidelines are just that, guidelines that allow for the occasional exception. Community consensus may determine on a case by case basis that a topic that technically passes a guideline should nonetheless not have an article, or vice versa. I'm not changing my close; take it to DRV if you want. T. Canens (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
You know I believe the lack of experience is yours, DRV compels anyone interested in a DRV to make at least a single if not repeated attempts to convince the closing admin to reconsider. An experienced editor would know that even if 90 experienced editors vote to delete an otherwise noteworthy article that if 10 editors express a rationale based in policy, the weight of the arguments is what is supposed to be considered. 90 people may want to delete Gavin Newsom for whatever reason, but if 10 people say, hey there are sources here and he is of note, then you must consider the weight. You seem to imply that in this case Leslie Daigle does have the sources but that since most people don't care and they are a majority, even though they don't base it on any policy, just their personal opinion that the article should be deleted and in such a case you have made the wrong call and would be more admirable to admit a mistake and gallantly and boldly revert the position. How about a compromise in order to prevent a DRV why not revert and close the AfD and then relist a 3rd nomination once the article has been overhauled the right way with all the sources we now have available. Then based on its well sourced condition we can consider it for AfD once more?LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • T.Canens has seven years here and thirty-thousand edits. Lack of experience? Timotheus, good luck. More walls of text may be forthcoming, if my past experience with this editor is any yardstick. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

AE

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Um, the case not only involves reverts by DLDD, which was substantiated by Tom harrison's analysis, but more serious allegations of source falsification by DLDD. Your comments at the AE are extremely puzzling and worrisome--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In fact the serious issues relating to the AE action are not the alleged 1rr violations they are the misrepresentation of sources at the AE to build a case against the accused editor. Dlv999 (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Tom added his analysis more than an hour after I asked my question. Of course, that doesn't matter, does it? T. Canens (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

FLG2

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not certain what scope you were hoping for at Arbcom, or if you were merely trying to remove the hot potato from your plate. There seems to be the understanding you were looking for a narrow-scoped case, so perhaps you should clarify. Seeing that you (or a colleague) also archived this, it would seem to imply you would like that case to go to Arbcom too, failing which it should certainly be resurrected at AE. The motion gaining acceptance is to open a case named 'Falun Gong 2', "to examine the behaviour of Ohconfucius, Colipon, and Shrigley, and other issues relating to pages which were within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong". Regards, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

From my discussion with AGK yesterday, my understanding is that they will look at the entire topic area. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
It makes no sense, and makes me strongly question why Homunculus is not named in the same breath. Perhaps we supposed to guess that she is instead subsumed within "and other issues relating to pages which were within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong". --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2 opened

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 16, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Solving the Pandora's box

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Timotheus Canens thanks very much for your serious tenacity, good will, and excellent work. Notice that in some cases GreenUniverse made only 'redirects', he didn't merge anything. As much be shocking to me realize a lot of articles uncivilly deleted, almost worst was the nearly non-reaction of most of the editors. This to me is a terrible symptom of a bigger problem. But there is another scary thing; in some point that user alleges that Wikipedia decided to merge all articles of Theosophy of a certain type in one article. I am not fond of Theosophy but I also don't like of a lot of things and even so I don't go burning books or deleting articles. But, could be such allegation possibly true? At last I’d like to deliver you a little more of my research to fill some gap left by me; ahead are more articles widely blasted by that user, and that very likely will need retrieval(eventually):

(^) –means written in other interwiki
(^^^) –means written in several interwikis
“tagged”, refers to merge

And (for instance) these articles, but not only, that user deleted and used to create a new one:

All best, KenneBar81 (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Dldd AE

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I see you're still keeping tabs on AE. Several days ago User:Zero0000 effectively asked if you could elaborate as to why you felt a six-month topic ban was an appropriate sanction for User:Dalai lama ding dong. (In case you missed his comment, and I'm curious to know myself.)—Biosketch (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to quote Tom harrison on this one: "Because of his sloppy work, and his reverting to that same uncited figure, the article misrepresented the source(s) it cited for some time". Especially when DLDD just finished a topic ban, they should have been far more careful than this. T. Canens (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
BothHandsBlack has pointed out that Tom harrison's analysis indicates 2 reverts. You stated that you agree with his assessment bar the first edit, which you do not consider a revert, leaving only one revert in the diffs supplied (which is acceptable under the 1rr rules). Is it correct to say that you are suggesting a six month topic ban for "sloppy work" and not any infringement of 1rr?
Regarding the edit itself DLDD has explained that the rational for the edit was that there was a content fork between the Camp David parent article and the Camp David section in the Israel-Palestine conflict article. DLDD says that he checked the sourcing in the parent article and changed the figure in the Israel-Palestine article. Tom Harrison is correct to say that the source and the figure prior to DLDD's edit have been in the article for some time, what he does not mention is that the source was entirely unsuitable and the figure prior to DLDD edit was plain wrong. DLDD's edit brought other editors attention to this problem, the problematic source and erroneous figure have been removed. The two articles now give the same figure, so there is no content fork and are supported by high quality academic sourcing. I see DLDD's edit as one that was made in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, in fact it has lead to a significant improvement in both content and sourcing (all be it from subsequent improvements to the article made a number of editors who's attention was brought to the problem by DLDD original edit). This is how improvements are made to the project, I feel strongly that this isn't the sort of action that should be leading to heavy sanctions. Dlv999 (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
That's enough.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dlv999, I have seen you bitterly complain in the past about users circumventing the official routes and attempting to directly persuade an admin and influence their decision making. Do you see why your comments here could be construed as hypocritical? You do realise that we are talking about an experienced editor with constant 1rr violations that decided to insert unsourced information into an article and then misrepresent a source to justify their edit? Ankh.Morpork 10:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I would much prefer to keep the conversation to the appropriate venue, but if editors such as yourself, JJG and Biosketch are all going to contact admins directly regarding an ongoing case at AE, then I feel I have no choice but to do the same to give an alternative viewpoint. Do you see that if a group of editors sharing a similar POV are constantly badgering an admin involved in I-P admin cases, that this could lead to a compromise in the administrative environment of the topic area? Regarding your accusations of misrepresentation of sources, the only people who I see have done that in this case are yourself and JJG, in order to get another editor sanctioned. Dlv999 (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not aware of 'badgering' and presenting my POV to an admin regarding an ongoing AE case. Please substantiate this claim. Ankh.Morpork 11:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
For instance, you were among a number of editors agitating against TC during the Nishidia AE case[6] during which you also chose to post this on TC talk page "If it could be demonstrated that one of the two 'camps' that edit I-P topics had lost support in your ability to deliver a fair judgement, would you recuse yourself from arbitrating in future I-P cases?" [7]. You also sent TC emails both during the current AE case and the Nishidi AE case. JJG (who also posted to TC talk page, criticizing him, during the Nishidi case [8]), stated to TC on his talk page during the current AE case that "Your comments at the AE are extremely puzzling and worrisome". It is my opinion that this kind of pressure being exerted by a group of editors on an Admin during ongoing AE cases could lead to a compromise of the administrative environment in the topic area. Dlv999 (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Enough. As amusing as it may be to watch the two of you argue back and forth, the orange bar is getting annoying. Yes, I don't think there's a 1RR violation by DLDD; the reason for that has been laid out in my comment at AE. Yes, the 6-month topic ban I proposed is for the "sloppy work" that would likely have been reverted as sneaky vandalism if done by an IP and resulted in an article that says X while citing a source saying Y. No, I don't disagree that DLDD was acting in good faith, or I would have proposed an indef topic ban. Good faith is simply the absence of bad faith, and good faith edits that are disruptive may nonetheless be sanctioned. If you have any further comments, post it to the AE thread, which is unlikely to be closing any time soon considering that Blade disagrees with me. T. Canens (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Falun Gong 2 evidence submissions

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please note this supplementary information regarding evidence submissions from drafting arbitrator Elen of the Roads. All parties submitting evidence are reminded that claims must be supported by diffs at all times. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit requset for your AFC Helper script

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have modifies {{AFC submission/comments}} to include a language parameter (as the third unnamed parameter in {{AFC submission}}) for submissions declined as not in english. Can you update the script to include this parameter and/or fix any problems it can cause? jfd34 (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Falung Gong 2 evidence phase deadline

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is a reminder that all evidence in the Falung Gong 2 case should be submitted here by Saturday the 16th of June. For the Arbitration Committee Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Block

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I notice you blocked User:89.100.207.51 after I had voiced that I wasn't going to block, and had instead warned both him and the other editor who was improperly tagging the IP as a vandal in edit summaries, via the comment on the IPs talk page. I had also left a comment on the article talk page itself, Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. This was after the reg'ed editor brought it to my attention, on my talk page [9], prior to any ANI being filed, and had been discussed on the talk page. I had also Full Protected the page they were both edit warring on. Normally, I try to warn on a single incidence of incivility, particularly considering the totality of the circumstances where the IP was having edits tagged as vandalism, as to try to get them two parties moving toward a resolution. Seems to be a little confusion here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I just wish to register a comment here. I think your block was spot on. As I have tried to bring to Dennis' attention I did not lightly label the IP 89.'s edit as vandalism, I first of all asked myself whether the edit was being made in good faith. As the edit was reverted initially because of the nationality of the source, I decided that it more than likely wasn't. He later claimed it was WP:OR even though it is cited in the article. To be honest it seems like a dialogue of the deaf with Dennis, as he doesn't address this point but continues with his presumption that I falsely labelled the edits as vandalism in order to win a content dispute.
It wasn't a case of editing content to improve the article, or out of concern for content it was editing out of dislike for a particular nationality. As noted at WP:ANI, that IP is noted for aggressive editing, invariably refusing to take matters to talk, starting spurious RFC or other administrative measures. The talk page is resplendent with multiple vandalism warning. I see no evidence whatsoever the guy is operating in good faith, plenty to indicate it was done in bad faith. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I was looking at the ANI thread and the IP's contribs, and didn't notice that thread on your talk page. Since you got it first, I'll leave it in your hands and have unblocked. Although, honestly, I think you are being a bit too lenient here. T. Canens (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand your hesitancy, and I debated it myself, and was watching very closely. In general, I try to always issue a warning first in cases like this. At the first sign of problems, I quickly block. This case is on the edge and understand why another admin who arrived at the scene first would or perhaps would not block. The problem here is that Wee Curry doesn't understand that he is mistaken about what vandalism is and isn't, which helped fuel the situation. And they still won't read WP:VANDAL to get a better understanding. Considering the source in question is from one of the govt.'s involved in the article topic itself, there *may* be a point as to NPOV and makes it NOT clear vandalism. I didn't want to interject my own opinions in their discussion, and Full Protect was the only solution to insure a consensus could be obtained. I didn't take your actions as wheel warring at all, I just figured you weren't aware of the previous discussions, since Wee hadn't mentioned it before. Or perhaps something happened after I had warned that I hadn't noticed, so I didn't want to assume anything here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the unblock was an error of judgement, your suggestion of leniency is spot on. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Wee curry monster: After you first called me a vandal, I directed you to WP:NOTVAND. If you had read it, you would see that I am clearly not a vandal. Instead, you called me a vandal again. Calling me a vandal is a personal attack. If you do not want to be personally attacked back, you shouldn't personally attack others in the first place.
The revert was not because of the nationality of the source. The article is about a dispute between two parties, the government of the UK and the government of Argentina. The source was the government of the UK. You can not possibly write a NPOV article on a dispute by citing one side's version of events as fact. If the source had been a reputable British academic journal or something along those lines, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. It's not about the source being British, it's about the source being the British government, one of the parties to the dispute. I would have had just as much a problem with the Argentine government's side of things being presented as if they were the gospel truth. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
These are the points that need to be brought up on the talk page of the article, the reason I Full Protected the page, and why I didn't consider the edits as vandalism. I have no opinions on the merits of the points, only that there is reason to think they may be in good faith. I suggest that now these points be brought up and discussed, in good faith, at the article itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I am baffled by this unblock. I reported this IP at WP:AN3 based on the edit war at Prince Aimone, Duke of Apulia, where the IP has violated WP:3RR and is continuing to edit war. The IP is also edit warring other articles including James, Viscount Severn, Sophie, Princess of Prussia. Your unblocking would seem to legitimise his edit warring in these cases. Kahastok talk 17:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Just read the above in more detail. Will address my comment to Dennis at his talk page. Kahastok talk 17:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I've blocked him for a week for the other episodes of edit warring. Had it only been this one incident, I would stand by my previous decision. Since it was a larger problem than was presented to me initially, I've essentially restored TC's original block, but for different reasons. All other points still hold true. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
[10] Dennis see my original report, I brought this to your attention yesterday. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Igny

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I am wondering why you ignore my arguments. I do not edit war, I have not been engaged in any soapboxing, I support my arguments with new reliable non-fringe sources, I am trying to be civil (and, I believe, not without a success), in other words, I am a good faith user. Why my arguments are almost totally ignored? It is simply non-polite. Regarding UUNC, let me point your attention at the case of user:The Last Angry Man. Almost everyone was sure he was a marknutley's sock, however, despite almost overwhelming evidences he was eventually unblocked and cleared. Frankly speaking, I will not be surprised to learn that SPI will show that UUNC was a sock/meatpuppet. However, I remember my mistake with TLAM, and that forces me to be cautious.
Hope to see your responce soon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I did read your comments. I don't find them very persuasive.
  • As to the alleged collusion, there's simply not nearly enough evidence; the editing pattern is just as consistent with multiple editors watchlisting the same article. Considering the contentious history of the article at issue, this is not an unlikely scenario.
  • AFAIK, TLAM was mostly unblocked on CU evidence that he's not MN. I'm not particularly interested in who UUNC is; his approach to editing is incompatible with the high standards of behavior expected of editors in this area, even assuming that he's a new user. Besides, the "meatmaster" is not necessarily someone on-wiki - it could have been a forum post or whatever, for all we know. When the user admits that he's been recruited, I'm not particularly inclined to spend time digging further when that would have absolutely no impact on the sanction to be imposed. T. Canens (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree with your argument about concurrent watchlisting. Yes, we should assume good faith when there is no proof of the opposite. However, in this particular case we need to take into account three facts. Nug and Estlandia (i) had been engaged in disruptive off-wiki coordination in past, (ii) changed their names, (iii) resumed their activity in the same field without explaining their past linkage to each other and to the EEML incident. It is natural to expect that these three factors apply some limitations on their behaviour: their behaviour must be impeccable when they edit in this area concurrently. What do we have in actuality? Upon joining an edit war, a user Estlandia totally ignored my reprated requests to self-revert[11],[12] and abstained from any discussion on the talk page. That is a typical WP:NINJA editing. (His contributions after I made my last request, do not allow me to attribute his silence to inactivity.) Further, a user Nug, who also was a member of the EEML, instead of warning his fellow editor Estlandia (as I have done with Igny]), preferred to capitalise on the consequences of Estlandia's ninja edits to report Igny: as you can see, without Estlandia there would be no direct 3RR violation from the Igny's side. (By writing that I do not imply I support Igny's multiple revert behaviour, and my post on his talk page is a proof of that.) All of that is at least highly suspicious.
In connection to that, when I compare your approach to Nug/Estlandia and to UUNC, I see some manifestation of double standard thinking. Frankly speaking, I have no idea who UUNC is. As my analysis demonstrates, he cannot be a sock of any of previous participants of his dispute, so the only two things we can speak about are meatpuppetry and SPA. Accusation in meatpuppetry are based exclusively on his own words ("I was invited to comment"). However, even if we assume that he was invited by Igny, we cannot speak about any sanctions against him. Our policy says: " A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." In other words, the remedies are applied only to those invited users who (i) engages in the same behaviour in the same context, and (ii) edits Wikipedia solely for that purpose. We can easily see that UUNC's behaviour does not fit these criteria:
  1. UUNC had not engaged in the same behviour as Igny. Firstly, and most importantly, he made no reverts and no edits at all to the article we discuss. As we can see, the major aspect of Igny's behaviour which inflicted sanctions on him were his POV tag reverts. Without reverts there would be no AE report and no sanctions at all. However, since UUNC have not been engaged in reverts (and in the edits of this article at all), I refuse to understand why the same sanctions have been applied to Igny and UUNC.
  2. One may argue that UUNC activity on the talk page could be disruptive. However, we can speak about that only if UUNC joined some RfC/vote procedure, or engaged in personal attacks. However, he simply expressed his opinion, which he supported by reliable sources he found. I see no traits of disrupting activity in such behaviour.
  3. UUNC demonstrated his ability and willingness to follow normal dispute resolution procedure. Thus, when some users expressed doubts in reliability of his source, he, following my advice, went to RS/N and, after obtaining community verdict, fully accepted it.
  4. I also point your attention at the fact that, independently on who concretely did invite him, UUNC expressed his own opinion. I can provide the examples when UUNC expressed position which differed from Igny's or my positions. In any event, to ban users who politely present well sourced statements on the talk page is a totally ridiculous step.
  5. And, finally, the thesis that UUNC is an SPA is simply incorrect. We have no sufficient information to judge about that. Third UUNC's edit was the edit of the Axis powers article (the edit that does not seem frivolous, and that has not been reverted so far, so we have no reason to think it had been made pro formae). Therefore, we have a ground to assume that UUNC's interests are broader. A situation is highly possible that, when passions started to grow over the Baltic issue, it took all UUNC attention, however, to assume that the user with such a short edit history is an SPA is an assumption of bad faith.
In summary, I believe the sanctions imposed on UUNC should be fully lifted due to insufficient evidences against him.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I've been observing this most patiently up to this point but I have to now object to Paul Siebert's continued insinuation of some kind of ongoing improper co-ordination between myself and Estlandia due to our former membership of a maillist some three years ago. Given his background Estlandia has a natural and self-evident interest in the topic, which predates Paul Siebert's involvement by almost a year, thus that he would watch that page should be no surprise to anyone. As for UUNC, by his own admission he was canvassed to participate, and despite Paul's repeated requests[13] UUNC has ignored these requests to identify who canvassed him and where. --Nug (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
If Estlandia is a good faith editor with self-evident interest in the topic, why didn't he just self-revert and join a discussion on the talk page as I requested? And why did you decide to capitalize on Estlandia's joining the edit war instead of explaining his mistake to him (as I did to Igny)? Re canvassing, there were no RfCs or similar procedures so I don't see why this question is so important.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you still beat your wife, Paul? --Nug (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Nug, I respectfully ask you not to misinterpret my words. That was not a loaded question, this is a rhetorical question. Yes, Estlandia may be an editor with self-evident interest in the topic, however, I am also the user with interest in the same topic. Estlandia took your part in this dispute, and I took Igny's part. However, similarities end at that point: whereas Estlandia joined an edit war, I (and UUNC) joined the talk page discussion. Whereas I tried to stop the edit war by addressing to Igny, you preferred to continue this war, and made no effort to stop it.
In addition, the users who had been engaged in past disruptive off-wiki coordination, changed their names and continued to edit in the same scrutinized and contentious area must be extremely careful, and must work extremely transparently. Normal assumptions of good faith are hardly applicable to that case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Considering that there is nothing going on off-wiki (for a very long time) and I continue to hear accusations of tag-teaming, etc. regarding host of editors who did not agree with Igny, Paul Siebert's "normal assumptions of good faith are hardly applicable to that case" is a WP:BATTLEGROUND personal attack. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
No. That is WP:CLEANSTART (WP:CHU contains a link to that page): "Even if the original account is not under a formal editing restriction, changing accounts hides the editor's past relationship to the disputing parties, and interferes with the community's ability to monitor the dispute." I believe you should retract your last statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

email

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've sent you an email. If you do not want to deal with this, please let me know. nableezy - 21:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

JS file updated

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please note that per the request of mabdul, and based on the history of the page User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js, I've replaced the contents with {{subst:User:mabdul/afc beta.js}}. Please let me know if this was in error. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia New York City Annual Meeting Sat Jun 30

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Join us at Jefferson Market Library on Saturday starting at 1pm for our annual meeting and elections, details at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC!--Pharos (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Don't drink too much =] usrealtor (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens/Archives/2012/6&oldid=1139341378"