User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2013/3
 | 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. |
AN Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Crazynas t 07:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2009/10
User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2009/10 is now transcluding Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. This came about because it directly transcludes Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Active participants, which is now a redirect to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. As a result of this transclusion, your old talk page archive now inadvertently belongs to some categories that it probably shouldn't belong to. Just thought you'd want to know. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 March 2013
- News and notes: Outing of editor causes firestorm
- Featured content: Slow week for featured content
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Television Stations
AEBLOCK
Tim, I have a vague recollection I asked someone about this once before (not you, I don't think). If I impose an arbitration block, can I as the blocking admin unblock, or am I subject to the same restrictions as all admins? This directly relates to this discussion. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- You can unblock. Note the "another administrator" in the restriction. T. Canens (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tim, I did read the policy carefully and did note the language. But, as you can see from the discussion, at least one admin (Anthony) apparently doesn't think it's clear enough. I'll keep a link to this little discussion just in case anyone wants to
decapitatedesysop me for supposedly violating policy. BTW, you're welcome to comment about the merits of the unblock request, although I'm inclined to unblock at this point. I shouldn't expect the perfect unblock request, if one exists. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tim, I did read the policy carefully and did note the language. But, as you can see from the discussion, at least one admin (Anthony) apparently doesn't think it's clear enough. I'll keep a link to this little discussion just in case anyone wants to
The Signpost: 11 March 2013
- From the editor: Signpost–Wikizine merger
- News and notes: Finance committee updates
- Featured content: Batman, three birds and a Mercedes
- Arbitration report: Doncram case closes; arbitrator resigns
- WikiProject report: Setting a precedent
- Technology report: Article Feedback reversal
Secret Informers
Wikipedia should not be a Gestapo type state [1]. It should not operate on the word of secret informers and in-camera trials. Who was the informer on User:George Ponderevo or was s/he invented by the Arbcom) and please supply diffs for the supposed serious crimes. Then please tell the project how each Arb voted - or are the Arbs ashamed of their actions? Giano 13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Bleeckie
Since the page Bleeckie has been deleted over a year and a half ago, a lot has changed. I'm asking for you to re-allow the page with modifications. I'd be happy to provide you with the additions and modifications before publication.
Not only has Bleeckie been nominated for a Lone Star Emmy (from the local chapter of the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences) and received additional press coverage, she is currently featured on four other Wikipedia pages. I certainly don't want her taken off of these pages as she is credible but wouldn't it make sense to have an up-to-date, factual Wikipedia page for her. Here are the links on Wikipedia. This is not for personal promotion as mentioned as the reason for the original deletion.
Thanks for your time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppetry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppeteer - not sure why this one links Leslie Fleming and not Bleeckie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_puppet
Not sure what this is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zanimum/Bleeckie
21:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)producerarose
Cla68
I see it's been a couple of weeks since you reblocked Cla68, and prevented him from using his talk page. You might also note that discussion is raging on his talk page regarding his fate. A bit rude don't you think? Anyway, can you explain to me what purpose the block is now serving? There's no consensus that linking to Wikipediocracy should be stopped, and Cla68 has said he would not mention Russavia's RL name again. And also when he was unblocked, there was no repeat of the incident. Is the block actually preventing anything? The gracious thing to do would be to unblock him, without requiring him to jump through any more arbitrary hoops, and then see what happens. Kevin (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Kevin, discussion with Cla68 is ongoing. This is not a first-time offense for Cla68, and thus issues are not as clear-cut as you might imagine. Risker (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well of course I'm not privy to your internal machinations, but from the outside the issues seem very simple indeed. And I think you missed my question. Kevin (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, I got it, and I answered it. They aren't simple issues. Risker (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well it's a pity that you can't figure out a way to communicate the gist of those weighty issues to the rest of us. Anyway, Cla68 takes exception to your statement above, and has responded here. Kevin (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, I got it, and I answered it. They aren't simple issues. Risker (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well of course I'm not privy to your internal machinations, but from the outside the issues seem very simple indeed. And I think you missed my question. Kevin (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion with Cla68 also has input from other people. While it's true that I've made clear publicly that I am one of those people, it would be foolish of me to imagine that I am the only such person. Thus it may be a wider discussion than you are imagining. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- In other words, you mean that what Risker meant was not "discussion with Cla68 is ongoing" but "discussion about Cla68 is ongoing". Apparently with people like yourself. Heh.Volunteer Marek 00:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion with Cla68 also has input from other people. While it's true that I've made clear publicly that I am one of those people, it would be foolish of me to imagine that I am the only such person. Thus it may be a wider discussion than you are imagining. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'd describe it that way. But there has definitely been communication between Cla68 and arbcom about his block, and communication between others and arbcom about the block. Whether Cla68's communication to arbcom helped him or not, I'm not going to comment upon. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- And you know this how? Volunteer Marek 00:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'd describe it that way. But there has definitely been communication between Cla68 and arbcom about his block, and communication between others and arbcom about the block. Whether Cla68's communication to arbcom helped him or not, I'm not going to comment upon. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- By the off-wiki comments of someone that claimed to be him! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Over at Wikipediocracy? Volunteer Marek 00:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- By the off-wiki comments of someone that claimed to be him! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was rather presuming that was him, yes. If it's not, you should probably tell arbcom so. (Kevin might be interested too.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I know what you're referring to. Got a link? AFAIK Cla said that he got just one email from ArbCom which more or less told him they'll get back to him in a couple weeks - personally I wouldn't call that "communication between" or "communication with" Cla. What is this "communication between others and arbcom" you're talking about? Was this over at Wikipediocracy too?Volunteer Marek 01:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was rather presuming that was him, yes. If it's not, you should probably tell arbcom so. (Kevin might be interested too.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry Marek, my AGF is becoming rather over-taxed so I don't think I'm going to continue this conversation. Have fun with your underlinings and such. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 March 2013
- News and notes: Resigning arbitrator slams Committee
- WikiProject report: Making music
- Featured content: Wikipedia stays warm
- Arbitration report: Richard case closes
- Technology report: Visual Editor "on schedule"
Question re: interaction ban breach
Hi, some weeks ago it was brought to your attention the instance of a most egregious breach of an interaction ban by an editor on JW's talk page; I was informed that it would be dealt with. I enquired with another Arb as to whether anything had been raised, but they couldn't see anything. Given the person's long history of wilfully breaching that interaction ban, it is necessary that something be done about it. What makes it more problematic is that I received an email from them telling me that they were trying to get me banned because I "fucked" with them, and the interaction ban breach on JW's talk page was continuing what I can only describe as harassment.
Please advise what if anything has been done about this interaction ban breach. Russavia (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you are talking about what I think, then it seems it was months before your block was lifted and very subtle. Any action at this point would be purely punitive. How about you stop being so vindictive? Your recent comment at YRC's page was really inappropriate and it seems you are nursing a grudge here too with regards to another editor. Perhaps if you didn't act this way you wouldn't have to deal with the kind of hostility you have faced.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- TDA, you obviously don't know what issue I am talking about. As to YRC, that is a failing of the community that I won't soon forget, given the nature of what occurred at the time.
- TC, given the harassment that I have been subjected to by a co-ordinated group of trolls off this project (of which this person is front and centre of if one looks with both eyes open), and given that the breach occurred only a matter of hours before my block was vacated, it would have been inappropriate to raise the issue with Ed Johson (if you read my appeal text, you will see what I am referring to there). I am really not sure whether if this would be appropriate for WP:AE -- I am guessing that it would be referred to the Committee anyway, given that the nature of the evidence would be unsuitable for that venue -- I am not sure if you have seen anything on the Arbcom mailing lists from myself in relation to this editor, but if you have, you will also surely know what I mean. I simply need to know whether the committee is discussing the issue and will deal with it appropriately, or whether it needs to go back to the Community -- given that it's been a couple of weeks since the issue was brought to your attention, it would be amiss and inappropriate to take it back to the community at AE, only to have it closed as being "stale". So that is what is needing advice on please. Russavia (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- All right, I see what you are talking about now. Honestly, given that no one saw your unblock coming and it was still set to expire months later I fail to see why keeping this dispute alive weeks later is worth anything.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- When an editor emails me and tells me that they were trying to get me blocked/banned because I "fucked" with them, and that editor is front and centre at every WP:AE request since 2011 it is a tad hard to simply let things slide. That their latest interaction ban breach occurred in such a troll thread on a prominent user talk page, and knowing full well that I had no right to reply with being blocked makes it worse. But what makes it inexcusable is that the interaction ban breach was extremely hostile, and continued along their declared aim of getting me banned/blocked. The editor in question was in 2011 blocked at AE for an interaction ban breach on myself, but another editor lobbied on their behalf saying that they did not know that they breached the interaction ban, and the block was lifted. They have also thrown in my face several times on Commons that I am under a mutual interaction ban with them here on English Wikipedia. So there can be no doubt that they knew what they were doing was a wilful breach of the interaction ban. TDA, et al, on it's own the post on JW's talk page may not seem like much (it actually looks bad on its own anyway), but when one looks it is simply a single tile in the larger and long-term pattern of abuse that I have been subjected to by the editor in question, both on and off this project. And as one who has zero tolerance for editorial harassment, I will no longer continue to allow things to slide and allow those engaging in harassment to continue unabated. Enough is enough. Russavia (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- To make it clear, this is the interaction ban breach diff in question. One can see that User:Volunteer Marek yet again actively called for my banning/blocking from this project. That I my block was vacated a matter of hours later is of no consequence to the interaction ban breach and the necessity of it needing to be dealt with on this project. Russavia (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- All right, I see what you are talking about now. Honestly, given that no one saw your unblock coming and it was still set to expire months later I fail to see why keeping this dispute alive weeks later is worth anything.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- TC, given the harassment that I have been subjected to by a co-ordinated group of trolls off this project (of which this person is front and centre of if one looks with both eyes open), and given that the breach occurred only a matter of hours before my block was vacated, it would have been inappropriate to raise the issue with Ed Johson (if you read my appeal text, you will see what I am referring to there). I am really not sure whether if this would be appropriate for WP:AE -- I am guessing that it would be referred to the Committee anyway, given that the nature of the evidence would be unsuitable for that venue -- I am not sure if you have seen anything on the Arbcom mailing lists from myself in relation to this editor, but if you have, you will also surely know what I mean. I simply need to know whether the committee is discussing the issue and will deal with it appropriately, or whether it needs to go back to the Community -- given that it's been a couple of weeks since the issue was brought to your attention, it would be amiss and inappropriate to take it back to the community at AE, only to have it closed as being "stale". So that is what is needing advice on please. Russavia (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Marek seems to have difficulty in keeping discussion collegial when the topic is banned editors. That diff is from today; I have great difficulty in seeing anything in my contribution to that discussion which justified it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- History repeats itself. Marek is tired of pissants at the picnic, or at most of the picnics in the last months. Find another hobby rather than passive aggressively wasting time. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Marek seems to have difficulty in keeping discussion collegial when the topic is banned editors. That diff is from today; I have great difficulty in seeing anything in my contribution to that discussion which justified it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (Sorry to T. Canens for hijacking his talk page) Ignoring all of the above, I draw your attention to the fact that the committee does not enforce interaction bans; the community does. If an interaction ban has been breached, then the appropriate enforcement mechanisms should be used. As a corollary, discussing a potential violation of an interaction ban with an arbitrator (or on any page that does not form part of the enforcement venues) is pointless—and likely to distract or disrupt other editors. Please take this to AE. AGK [•] 21:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to interrupt, but with linking to this discussion russavia has breached his topic ban and therefore should be re-blocked by the Committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.211.109.17 (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- AGK, no problem, I'll take it that coming from yourself that this is not something the Committee would be dealing with. I'll take it to AE for them to deal with, and given that I have been under the impression that this is something that Arbcom would be dealing with that they will still act on this. Thanks Russavia (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have now taken this to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Volunteer_Marek. I really wish I didn't have to do this, but unfortunately it is something that has to be done. Russavia (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you
|
It's late and I'm apparently more tired than I thought. Thanks for catching that. I'll probably be more or less signing off for the day soon, although maybe I should have already done that.Here's some coffee for you, although I think I probably need it more than you do at this point. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC) |
Bleeckie
It appears my request regarding the Bleeckie page has gotten moved or deleted? I am not familiar with the layout of Wikipedia. Do I need to repost?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Producerarose (talk • contribs) 05:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- My apologies, I meant to get to this earlier and then totally forgot about it :(
It's been automatically archived. Anyway, if you want, I'd be happy to move the deleted article to your userspace for you to work on. Remember that you'll need to show significant coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources for the article to be restored. T. Canens (talk) 07:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
No problem! That would be great! Thanks so much! Please let me know when it is in a location that I can access. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.203.112.161 (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Please let me know how to access the article to provide the necessary updates. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Producerarose (talk • contribs) 11:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Producerarose (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
These lies of Wolter's are going to be a problem for me it seems (I'm not sure if you saw the IP's post to my talk page). I've asked for oversight about the IP's latest edits about another editor. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 March 2013
- WikiProject report: The 'Burgh: WikiProject Pittsburgh
- Featured content: One and a half soursops
- Arbitration report: Two open cases
- News and notes: Sue Gardner to leave WMF; German Wikipedians spearhead another effort to close Wikinews
- Technology report: The Visual Editor: Where are we now, and where are we headed?
Hello, I have just re-posted a article on the artist, "Akello Light". Since I know the process already, I wanted to point out the areas that are now fix from the previous upload.
1.No nontrivial coverage in multiple sources I have added two more sources:
http://thefindmag.com/news/support-72-souls-she-likes-to-play-indiegogo-campaign/
2. MadmanBot Yes, this is one of my rough drafts. I did write this. http://wikibin.org/articles/akello-light.html You can even look back in the history of the former post and realize this.
Let me know if everything is proper or not, Have a great day
AUSC
I just wanted to leave a note that many in the communittee (at all levels BTW, not just the lowly editors) feel that there is rampant abuse of the oversight/checkuser tools in the site now, so many do not feel as though anything is being done about that, so what would be the use of being on the AUSC. Or even complaining to them. There seems to be a general attitude that Checkusers and Oversighters have extremely wide latitude to perform reviews and checks without a warrant so to speak, so many including myself do not really see the value in this committee. Especially since there have been extremely rare occasions where the tools were removed for cause. I'm sure you have heard all this before but I noticed a flurry of comments being left at various places so I thought I would mention it in case you were wondering why there hadn't been too many folks stepping up. Kumioko (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)