Jump to content

User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/6

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


Question

I just discovered that the editor responsible for filing an arbitration enforcement against me six months ago was banned by the community. As you were responsible for imposing the ban and declining my appeal, does this affect my status in any way? I was unaware of this at the time of my appeal. Thank you. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No. The status of the filer is in general irrelevant to any sanctions imposed. T. Canens (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Including "evidence" and arguments presented? IF he was banned for behavioral issues, does that not pose an issue at all? Do these sorts of posts not cause alarm for administrators? Clearly this user had an agenda and it wasn't in good faith from the start. Right? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You were sanctioned because several uninvolved administrators found that your edits constituted sanctionable misconduct. While the AE complaint may have been responsible for bringing said misconduct to our attention, the status of the filer in no way affects the propriety, or lack thereof, of your edits. T. Canens (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I see. But the edits included in the evidence were provided by a community-banned user (banned for behavioral problems yes?) I understand uninvolved admins found my edits constituted sanctionable conduct - but these edits were cited by a blatantly battleground user. For example, if an editor comments in AFD and then is found to be a sock-puppet and banned, does his comments still have merit? If I were to file an AE against a user I was in a conflict dispute with, and later community banned, would that AE remain 100% legitimate? I've witnessed first hand editors caught breaking the rules as Sol did forfeiting their reputation entirely and thus many of their edits. This is my concern, thanks for the quick response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The acceptability of comments immediately preceding a ban can sometimes be a gray area, but I'm not aware of any precedent that says comments made months before the ban should be disregarded. In any event, this is more like an AfD nomination: even if the nominator is discovered to be a banned user, we don't normally close the debate immediately if there are other good faith delete !votes. Perhaps those users would have never come across the article had the banned user not nominated it in the first place, but you can't really do a memory wipe on them. T. Canens (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

All right thanks for the clarification. I was truly puzzled by this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Returned

Could you please clarify the boundary of my topic ban you handed out here? Am I allowed to edit geography articles of Israeli locations 'inside the Green Line (Israel)' and Israeli bio articles that are not related to 'conflict'? --Shuki (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You may edit articles unrelated to the A-I conflict, provided that your edit is also unrelated to the conflict. T. Canens (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Merridew/Barong/etc use of multiple IP addresses (some extras to block)

You recently blocked 125.162.150.88 for three months per the ArbCom restrictions he's under. He's also currently editing under the following IP as well, 110.139.190.67 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:110.139.190.67). You might want to block that one as well, and there might be others.70.62.99.34 (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Rationale for the delete closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fastest selling albums worldwide

I disagree that there was a consensus reached in this Afd, and specifically for List of fastest-selling albums in the United States and List of fastest-selling albums in the United Kingdom. For the record there were four votes for delete and four votes for keep, with half of the delete votes ambiguous whether they were for deleting all or the main article. --Musicbuff3643 (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

First, AfD is not a vote; and even if it is you missed the nominator. Second, I find a number of keeps to be very weak. You can seek review at WP:DRV, if you wish. T. Canens (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
==Deletion review for List of fastest-selling albums in the United States==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of fastest-selling albums in the United States. 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. Musicbuff3643 (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Sabrina Deep Article

Hello Timotheus. I wanted to invite you to reconsider deletion of Sabrina Deep article, before i go for deletion review. I followed the deletion discussion and i would like to officially bring the following to your attention: Speedy Deletion initial request from May 22 2011 was clearly clashing with the "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" principle.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz comment ("a prostitute-on-the-road") is false, offensive and irrelevant to the discussion and yet it clearly aims to influence the discussion.

Sabrina Deep meets criteria 3 (record breaker and therefore unique contributor to a specific pornographic genre) and 4 (featured on The Howard Stern Show twice) of PORNBIO.

Carrite deletion suggestion is not motivated: being a record breaker and holder in the bukkake or gangbang genre is exactly a satisfying requisite of PORNBIO criteria 3. He might not like bukkake and gangbangs but those are exactly subgenres of porn.

I disagree that any rough consensus for deletion was achieved. I haven't read a single explanation backed by evidence about why criteria 3 and 4 of PORNBIO are not met; viceversa, it has been clearly proven and motivated the opposite.

When Spartaz criticised the lack of sourcing in the article, i have contributed to improve it adding independent coverage from AVN and other reputable sources, but that seems to have been ignored: "Rather than putting the article on AfD, try expanding it. Do you know the subject matter? Rather than trashing it, go out and find sources. If not, look for someone who does know the subject matter. Or, if you're feeling particularly daring, go and research it, and become an expert on the subject matter yourself, so that you can find those sources much more easily." Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. I would like to know your thoughts about this and to thank you in advance for your time. Engenius(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC).

My reading of the debate is a bit different. HW's comment is unnecessary and inappropriate, to be sure, but that does not affect the basic point he is making. As far as I can see, the argument that there's a record is successfully disputed by HW, as Spartaz underscored in his comment. As to PORNBIO#4, there's nothing except a bare assertion, without any support, in the AfD. T. Canens (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
AVN Is not a reliable source as they regurgitate press releases and do not have reliable fact checking on what the publish. Spartaz Humbug! 03:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
How can you say that as to PORNBIO#4 there's nothing except a bare assertion? Are you telling me that Howard Stern's website, Sirius, Zimbio, The Examiner and the actual footage from the HSS circulating on the Net don't prove that she has been featured twice on the show as main guest? Spartaz, about AVN not being a reliable source, could you please explain to me which is a reliable source in the adult industry? Is XBIZ a reliable source? Is Xcritic a reliable source? Is Fleshbot a reliable source? Why is AVN listed on WP as a reliable news source in the adult business, but then it's not considered as a reliable source when it comes to back your motivations for articles deletion? I'm sorry, but i'm not satisfied with these unexplained explanations and i'm going for deletion review.--Engenius (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI case

Hi. Could you open a SPI case about Satesclop (I don't know how to do) ? He has been already tagged as a sock of Diplomatiko. Thus, he has made vandalism in the page Spain (climate section) by suppression of references, and is regularly blocked for his disruptive edits. Thanks.--92.161.15.22 (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Request for amendment of ARPBIA restrictions.

Hello

During my topic ban I understood what I did wrong though I am an pretty old editor I have not edited frequently.When I was notified by admin about ARPBIA sanction I have asked him what I did wrong.He didn't really say what I did wrong [1] apparently I was engaged in edit war.Though back then I felt if I will not break 1RR rule I am OK.I know understand that its wrong and every edit should be discussed thoroughly.As it my first offence I kindly ask that at least topic ban will be lifted as I served more then half of it also I am willing to accept a mentorship to give you more reassurance to amend my restriction or some other restriction for example that [2].Thank you in advance for your consideration. --Shrike (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked at your recent edits. I'm not convinced that lifting the topic ban in full at this time is a good idea, but I'm willing to give mentorship a try. When and if you find an experienced editor, with a clean history in ARBPIA areas, willing to mentor you, I'll be willing to suspend the topic ban for the duration of the mentorship. It will be entirely your responsibility to find a suitable mentor, and his or her opinion on your editing will carry considerable weight for any future sanction discussions, so choose carefully. Bear in mind that this will be a one-chance only thing: if it did not work out, you can expect the topic ban to be swiftly reimposed and you won't get another shot at shortening it for a long time. T. Canens (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been asked to considering serving as a mentor for Shrike, an endeavor I would be more than willing to undertake. However, there are two things I want to make clear: I have not the slightest background knowledge of ARBPIA issues, although I could probably get a feel for them within an hour or two, and my activity on-wiki will probably suffer indefinitely, and it might take me a day to respond to queries or concerns at times. If you're both OK with that, then I'd be happy to do what I can to nudge Shrike in the right direction. Juliancolton (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I want to thank you that your accepted becouse the area is very contenengous so it will not be an easy task. I think its very good that you don't have slightest idea in that issue that way you can asses what I say in most neutral way.Like I said before I have asked other users I want to hear answer from them too before I decide.I hope you don't mind.Thank you--Shrike (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

[3]Cptnono (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Parameters of topic ban?

Am I allowed to edit Mohammed Rashid Qabbani with this source? It is about Palestinians, but does not relate to the Israeli-Palestinian or Israel-Arab conflict explicitly. Thank you. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why you can't from a quick look. T. Canens (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
All right. Let me know if you find my edit objectionable (in violation of TB) and I will immediately revert it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar
Awarded for closing difficult DRVs!—S Marshall T/C 01:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons

Shouldn't the talk page be restored as it contains information about previous mergers? —Farix (t | c) 10:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Gibraltar AE

Hi,

I and other editors (Pfainuk and Wee Curry Monster) may be violating the rules of an AE in which you participated[4].

On the one hand we have been asked to give our opinion about an edit proposal (in order to settle the dispute).[5] On the other hand, we are not supposed to make comments about the period the edit deals with. Should we remove our comments?

Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not true, Pfainuk and I refused to comment or partake in a discussion as we are restricted from doing so. I gave RHoPF an answer as he pressed me but I'm not entering or prepared to enter into any discussion. I do however ask if the intention of the restriction was to allow an editor who was involved in the original arbcom case to be able to edit over the objections of others [6]? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Timotheus. I've replied on my own talk and left a link to my reply at Talk:Gibraltar. My own advice would be that the four restricted editors must not continue to discuss anything at Talk:Gibraltar until they've opened the required RfC. The unrestricted editors can go ahead and try to reach consensus on their own, regardless of some of them being in the original Arbcom case. Let me know if you disagree. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Kudos

Very sagacious close, in my opinion. Well done. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

User:Unscintillating, WP:BAN, and procedural closure

Hi. I noticed that User:Unscintillating has closed WP:Articles for deletion/Chester Romans and WP:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange (3rd nomination) as procedural closure despite having been told that WP:Speedy keep #3 is the criterion that applies. Previous discussion is at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 21, User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/5#WP:BAN, and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225#Several instances of banned editors making seemingly good deletion nominations, guidance please?. He has also been "revert"ing (actually striking) User:Anthem of joy's nominations and comments per WP:BAN on closed AfDs, which isn't really a problem on its own.

I hesitate to contact Unscintillating directly after considering how my previous comments were received. Do you have any advice on how or whether I should proceed? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the two closes, per the general rule that NACs may be reopened by any administrator. Honestly, this is getting into disruptive point making territory, and if he doesn't stop I suspect ANI is probably the way to go. T. Canens (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. Those two AfDs are past 7 days, so they might be missed on their old daily logs if you don't close or relist them. Flatscan (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

abortion rights move closure

There is one other option to consider. You can analyze the move that got us in the predicament in the first place, and revert it, if you feel that the closing admin was too involved and made a poor decision with lack of clear consensus. It's rather silly, in my mind, that the pro-life move request was closed as "no consensus" even with 70+% support, yet the original pro-choice move request was moved with less than 60% support. THAT is the reason we are in the situation we are now, and if there is any admin (besides me) willing to stand up to that decision, we could at least restore some order and status quote (of how those articles were named for 5+ years), thus making the need for a move less urgent, and giving the community time to discuss alternatives and compromises. As it stands, no one is happy with the way it is, and no one supports the current naming of both articles. I bet if we were to poll whether people wanted to keep it the way it is vs. revert the original bad closure, we'd get a consensus there.... -Andrew c [talk] 13:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono and AE

Hello Tim. Could I ask that you please respond to these series of edits? I am at the end of my rope with this nonsense. Thank you. nableezy - 06:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I second that. Your actions as an admin have been brought up. Maybe it is time for ARBPIA3.Cptnono (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you also address these edits by Cptnono ? He's clearly editing while drunk and trying to stir up trouble. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The three of you should stay away from each other for the time being. Cptnono, if you are intoxicated, I highly recommend that you refrain from editing Wikipedia for now. T. Canens (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Tim, Im sorry, but that does not address the problem. I realize more AE threads from me may not be what you all want to see, but this has been ongoing for some time now. I prepared a draft AE request in my usersapce, Ill be moving that over shortly. nableezy - 19:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarity

My topic ban expires July 3rd correct? Approximately 8 months from December 3rd when my month topic ban was imposed? WikifanBe nice 03:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

August 3rd. T. Canens (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Isn't December 3rd to July 3rd 8 months? Is the month of December not counted? WikifanBe nice 07:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Count again. December (minus 3 days), January, February, March, April, May, June, and 3 more days in July is 7 months. T. Canens (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jack Merridew

As suggested at RPP, I'm coming here first to request that you unprotect User talk:Jack Merridew. I wish to place an {{edit protected}} request for the protected page User:Jack Merridew, but your action in protecting its associated talk page has denied me the opportunity to do so. --RexxS (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to unprotect it when he's using autoconfirmed socks to disrupt the page. What exactly do you want changed on his user page? T. Canens (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I expect he wanted to restore my statement. Stone Town (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
(or he might have been seeking to remove the (then) inappropriate block template. 180.241.11.97 (talk) Jack 12:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC))
I did indeed want to challenge the appropriateness of marking a user as blocked, when they were not. It is deeply saddening that the resolution to that iniquity was to block the user simply in order to match the template. I'm obviously the bigger fool for not expecting that reaction. Eventually I'll learn, I guess. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

fair use

The Iranian copyright law doesn't allow fair use. why didn't you delete this image? Razghandi (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Iranian copyright laws don't apply to servers in the United States, and Wikipedia is hosted in the United States. demize (t · c) 20:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Have a look at this. Razghandi (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
This, I believe, is what's applicable here. demize (t · c) 21:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm a user from Persian Wikipedia. In Persian Wikipedia, we don't allow logos to be uploaded. There was a conflict about this until Roozbeh Pournader, founder of fawiki, asked Jimmy wales about this and Jimbo responded that Iranian copyright law is better to be respected. I don't know how to prove this but have a look at the same file on Persian wikipedia that has been deleted. Razghandi (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The rules on fawiki don't necessarily apply here on enwiki. This is one of those cases - copyright here is US based, so if something is not copyright in the United States, it's perfectly fine to use. demize (t · c) 22:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Have a look at this. Razghandi (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, not everything works exactly the way Jimmy would like it. Unless we were to follow the same policy for every image of the same nature, this image has to stay as is. I would suggest opening an RFC on this if you're truly concerned - the policy would be completely laid out based on what the community as a whole wants after the RFC. demize (t · c) 17:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
That's a good idea, but the problem is that my English is not so good to manage the RFC. I will ask other users of Persin Wikipedia to do it (if they accepted). Razghandi (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

arbcom clarification request

Good day, You have been included in the list of people involved in relation to my recent request to Arbcom for clarification about an Arbcom decision. Communikat (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Gilabrand amendment request

In my own confusion at not being notified, I forgot to follow up on whether my request that you be notified had been fulfilled. Please accept my apologies for not doing so. Regards, AGK [•] 23:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

User talk:Jacurek

It seems your banned editor has re-appeared! I've reverted once but I think he'll persist. Denisarona (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Viaden Gaming ver 2

hello, I would like to upload the new non-commercial version of Viaden Gaming article Moreover, I'd like to inform you about this so that you consider my intensions as NON-spammy Please, review it thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaaux (talk • contribs) 07:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Chesdovi

With a frivolous AE report, shouldn't a restricting on initiating AE requests be also included in the restriction? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a bit superfluous since I'm banning him for a year... T. Canens (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Asad

Is it within reason for me to file a report on Asad more recent behaviour? Chesdovi (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry. I will place on my talk page for posterity. Chesdovi (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

KevinOKeefe

Hi, just wanted to thank you for removing User:KevinOKeeffe's reviewer rights. DuncanHill (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens/Archives/2011/6&oldid=450520643"