Jump to content

User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/9

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


AE

Hello TC. The case at WP:AE#Russavia is either a small matter of fixing a technical problem with the restriction, or a broad matter needing the sanctions extended. Would you have the time and willingness to brainstorm some solutions here on your talk page? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure. So here are my current thoughts about this case:
  • My interpretation of interaction bans and revert restrictions is that they require a mens rea element: I want to see evidence that the editor in question intended the edit as a revert (for revert restrictions) or knew or should have known that the edit has something to do with the other side of the interaction ban. I think this is a good way to avoid penalizing good faith edits that accidentally got caught in the net by happenstance.
  • In this case in particular, therefore, my view is that no violation occurred.
  • However, this is not the first time we saw Russavia and Tammsalu at AE. Their last skirmish, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Russavia, was every bit as messed up as this one at present. What seems to me to be the case is that AE itself is being used as the battleground since they can't do it elsewhere. AGK's approach was to treat the filing of a report as an interaction ban violation itself, but that's not supported by current interaction ban policy and IMO not a good practice, since it would make interaction bans hard to enforce.
  • Since the fuzzier line requiring intent hasn't been working in this particular case, my view is that we should switch to a stronger, strict liability, version that draws a brighter line. We may prohibit either from editing (1) any article which the other has edited within the past month and (2) any discussion in which the other has participated, with it being their responsibility to verify that the other editor hasn't edited the article/discussion. These are easily enforced bright lines. In conjunction, we may limit the enforcement requests to, say, a 200-word statement and a 200-word response, with no further participation by either party allowed after that.
  • This would also clear up the "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" part. With respect, I do not think it covers content discussions. Since we have no way of drawing a meaningful line between different types of content discussions, this would leave an exception that in large part swallows the rule. Moreover, it's hard to enforce - at which point does a permitted content discussion becomes unacceptably personal? In the case of these two editors in particular, I'm quite unconvinced that allowing content discussions would be productive, either, given what they wrote in the AE thread. My reading is that it covers only things that are strictly necessary: clarification. amendment, and enforcement requests and appeals, and nothing more.
T. Canens (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hence an AfD nomination by R. of an article created by M. [1] during the standing AE request was not a violation of the interaction ban? Biophys (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually it is: since Twinkle tells you who the page creator is, and WP:BEFORE also state that nominators should check the article history, R. at the very least should have known that M. created the page by the time the nomination was complete and therefore should have self-reverted that nomination. T. Canens (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Is moving this image to Commons an interaction and disruptive? Of course it is, and I should be banished for doing so?
Actually, it is not. Twinkle is a completely automated program once you hit submit. And nominating an article which is obviously not-notable for AfD is concentrating on the content, as per Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions. There is nothing stopping said editor from participating in the AfD, so long as they focus on the content, rather than commenting on editors. One will notice that I have only commented on content, nothing more, nothing less. Also, I need to add that your suggestion above is again not workable, and is something that I would actually ignore, given that it is essentially allowing editors to assume WP:OWN over an article, simply by editing it first, and ensuring that they make at least one edit per month, in order to block other editors from editing it. For example, I could be completely stopped from editing Estonia-Russia relations, simply by another editor making a single edit at the beginning of the month, and then making another edit just under a month later, and then making another edit just under a month later, and on and on it can go. It is essentially a topic ban, without evidence of wilful disruption on my part. Perhaps admins should be taking the words at the above link into their head; if edits are focussed on content, and are not disruptive, then they should be allowed. If edits are focussed on comments about editors, their motives, etc, etc then they are disruptive and should be sanctioned. Other than that, admins should be seeking clarification from the committee, because already there are too many conflicting opinions on what is and isn't a breach of the interaction ban. --Russavia Let's dialogue 11:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
See the image just above? During the AE I had a quick look at the editor's contributions and quite close to the top was the upload of an image to enwp. Upon looking at the image, I added {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} to the image as it is PD, and I then used CommonsHelper to make the move to Commons (so that other projects can also use the image), after doing the move, I then added {{Now Commons}} to the image page on enwp. I obviously knew who made the initial upload, and I wilfully moved the image to Commons. But according to your comments above, I would have breached my interaction ban. But only an idiot (in my mind) would say that this edit was disruptive and is worthy of sanctions. A technical breach of the interaction ban, but obviously not disruptive. What would you do as an admin if this was brought to you for enforcement? --Russavia Let's dialogue 11:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Twinkle tells you who the page author is when you nominate it for AfD. Once you knew or should have known that M. was the author, you should have self-reverted that nomination.

A ban applies to all edits that fall within its terms, good or bad. When there is an interaction ban, it means that (1) the totality of the interaction, in aggregate, has been disruptive and (2) it is not worth the scarce resources to try to separate the good interactions, if any, from the bad ones. Therefore, the two of you should stay away from each other, period. No exceptions. No looking through each other's contributions. WP:DIGWUREN#At wit's end was four years ago, and, well, if we have to use apparently Draconian measures to maintain some semblance of order in this topic area, so be it. T. Canens (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That section is in relation to site bans, which I am not under. I am under an interaction ban, for which the relevant page is Wikipedia:IBAN#Interaction_ban. Nowhere does it state that I can't edit the same article, nor does it say that I can't upload an image to Commons, nor does it say that I can't nominate an article which an editor started 2 years ago and last edited 2 years ago for AfD, when it is clear that I am concentrating on content only. --Russavia Let's dialogue 12:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Timotheus, generally speaking I would have thought the test of whether a revert was intentional or accidental is whether or not the editor acknowledges it was a mistake when their attention is brought to it and self-reverts the revert. As for your view that "AE itself is being used as the battleground", look at it from my perspective, I'm minding my own business editing an article and I get unexpectedly reverted, what do I do? If you re-examine the AE report you will see that I was requesting a revert, not a block or ban, so where was the battleground? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A self-revert, in many cases, is persuasive evidence of a lack of intent, but the whole thing ultimately requires evaluating the totality of circumstances and cannot be reduced to a few hard and fast rules (just look at the attempts to define exactly what a "revert" is at WT:3RR; these are usually shot down, for good reasons). For instance, deleting something added by another editor 3 years and 500 edits ago is normally not considered a revert barring strong evidence of intent, even if there is no self-revert. Perhaps your original intent in filing the AE request was indeed benign - but the fact is that the two times it came to AE it inevitably ended up as the two of you sniping at each other about everything under the sun. T. Canens (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
If you re-read my contributions to the AE case I don't believe there was any sniping on my part. I know how to conduct my self with the necessary level of decorum, as Shell Kinney appreciated in my conduct in the original WP:ARBRB case[2]. My first bulleted response was directed to Petri Krohn, the second bulleted resposnse was directed to EdJohnston's suggestion of an RFC, the third bulleted response was a request to Ed to extend the scope of his suggest and the final bulleted point was an affirmation of my preparedness to give Ed's proposal a go despite the negative view of others and the extra evidence of further iBan breaches such as the AfD nomination. So I am wondering what aspect of my presentation was seen as sniping on my part? I am always open to constructive feedback. Cheers. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion focuses on the AFD nomination but that's not all that happened here. Since I also have a mutual interaction ban with Russavia I want to have the following clarified: is showing up on an article that was recently created by an editor I have an interaction ban and slapping it up with multiple nasty looking tags an interaction violation or is it simply a good faithed "focusing on content"? What if this is done shortly after the creator of that article filed an AE report on me? Is it reasonable to think that this tag-slapping was done "on accident" in innocent good faith, rather than as a retaliation? I'm asking because I can certainly think of several of Russvia's articles that need some serious work, which I have left alone up to now, but apparently if this kind of behavior does not breach the interaction ban, I take it it would be fine for me to commence work on these, right? Or are the interaction ban lines drawn clearer? This is an honest question, though admittedly I'm also asking it to cover my ass, just in case someone tries to file an AE report on me in the future. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom likes article improvement. Go and look at WP:EEML and search for 'Modified by open motion.' Notice that special approval was given to Radeksz, Piotrus and Martintg to improve specific articles. Martintg was allowed to improve references on all the articles listed here. Why doesn't somebody who is still suffering restrictions choose some articles they would like to improve and make a similar proposal? The admins who work at AE might be able to suggest how this plan could be put into effect. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The only remaining restrictions from that case (and related ones) are the mutual interaction bans - the ones under discussion here - which, up until recently, have been working just fine to prevent battleground behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Wait a second. Is somebody saying that if I edit an article that was edited previously by somebody I have a half-forgotten interaction ban from two years ago, or if that editor edits my article, this violates an interaction ban and makes one of us sanctionable?? Are you saying that in other words I need to review the history of each page I edit to make sure it has not been edited in the past by that editor?? I've always thought that the interaction bans mean talk page discussion with or about the other editor, and have nothing to do with content. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I think in these kind of cases, the key is whether the edits are made in "innocent" good faith or not. If A has an interaction ban with B, and A makes a revert of an edit that B made, say, two years ago, obviously that could've been an accident. Three things though:
1) If A all of sudden makes a series of reverts of B's edits from two (or whatever) years ago (recall that in this topic area, editors appear to have a very long memory), then obviously something else is going on, and that isn't "innocent good faith" edits but rather straight up gaming of the interaction ban,
2) if the reverts are made out of A's usual topic area but in one that B frequently edits, this also suggests an attempt is being made to revive old battlegrounds,
3) if it is pointed out to A that what s/he actually did is revert B, and A refuses to self-revert, then that also suggests that A is playing around, rather than acting in good faith.
So based on that, the way I would interpret these kind of situations is: Is there evidence that A is engaging in a series of anachronistic reverts, which would actually fall under WP:STALKING, even without an interaction ban (the existence of which only compounds the transgression), or can it be plausibly seen that A made these reverts on accident?
(edit conflict): I've always thought that the interaction bans mean talk page discussion with or about the other editor, and have nothing to do with content - I very strongly disagree. You can't separate "content" from talk page discussions - especially since Wikipedia guidelines require editors to discuss potentially controversial content changes on the talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I follow that, but your interpretation assumes that the people looking at the situation are thinking about a bigger picture, rather than looking for an excuse to drop a hammer on some potential troublemakers (like, let's say, anybody ever associated with a certain four letter case). I'd very much like to see if your interpretation is supported by an AE regular/admin, because so far, some of what has been written in the pages here suggests to me that I could be suddenly blocked for making some random edit to an article where a person with an interaction ban on me corrected a typo 10 years ago. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
In the case you describe, you would simply have to self-revert the edit (and assuming that this is an isolated incident not part of series of reverts). An accident is an accident and I think everyone can appreciate the fact that they will happen, but the problem is that some editors may try to revive old battlegrounds by reverting very old edits and then claiming innocence (hell, they might even make a few innocent typo-correction type edits to buttress that appearance). Generally "accidents" don't happen in a series, that's why they're called "accidents" - if it's a series, then that's called a "pattern".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
So now, can I make a comment here (related to content, of course, nothing personal), or would it be a no-no due to the presence of certain editors with an interaction ban? If the answer would be no, it seems ridiculous to me that the bans encourage a weird "marking" attitude - I was here first, editor X now cannot touch this article, ha! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I am still waiting for a response from an admin. Also, I found out that an article I've created and contributed significant content to has been recently tagged by an editor I've an interaction ban with. This raises several questions: 1) did that editor violate an interaction ban with me? 2) despite being the primary contributor to the article, and despite nobody else apparently being willing to address the tag, am I allowed to comment on it on talk and/or remove it? 3) If I can comment on it on talk, would the other editor (with the i-ban on me) be able to reply? I will end by saying again that I'd prefer if i-bans were not preventing us from editing content; the point of the i-bans in the EE area was to prevent personal attacks and harassment through commenting on others, not any content issues. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Why not explain to an admin which article you want to edit. That admin can take whatever steps are needed to allow you to edit the article, so long as they are convinced you are not pursuing an edit war with the previous guy. There is also the option of explaining on the talk page what you want to do. Then somebody not under a restriction could choose to make the edit for you, if they are convinced it's an improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Explain to an admin where? So are you saying that one can tag and presumably edit an article somebody else under the interaction ban wrote, but then the other party cannot revert those edits? But they can discuss them on article's talk? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I would say, explain to any random admin. I see no reason why an edit can't be discussed on the talk page, so long as the two interaction-banned parties don't address each other directly. If this issue poses an actual problem, some examples would help. If you think this will require longer discussion, the thread could be moved to my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me put it this way. If I were you, I wouldn't touch anything like that with a ten-foot pole, whether or not it technically falls inside your interaction ban. You do it at your own peril. T. Canens (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
TC, whom does the "you" in your statement refer to? The person who created the article? The person who tagged the article of the person who created the article? The person who created the article and wants to discuss the tag? Are you saying that there is some kind of first-mover advantage here (for the person who "violates" the interaction ban first, with the taggin (or similar behavior))? Are you saying that in essence, if I have an interaction with user X, and user X has an interaction ban with me, then I can slap any ol' tags on the articles X created and there ain't diddly squat that X can do about it - not even ask or discuss why these tags where placed there? You know, as in giving them the "standard IDONTLIKEIT cocktail":
Oh and add in a few categories which are likely to cause controversy and upset people. Would you want to read an article like that? Would you trust an article with all those tags (nm, the actual underlying quality of the article itself)? No? Neither would I. Get the point of what's going on here yet? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I certainly share VM's concerns. It is unreasonable to expect editors to check a history of an article to see if it has been at some point edited by another editor, and further, check all the relevant diffs to make sure they don't revert/edit the content added by them. At the same time, it is unreasonable to say that old edits are ok to revert but new ones are not, per VM. Of course, VM's example is a bit exaggerated, but what about 1 tag or 1 controversial category per article every few days, spread throughout dozens or hundreds of otherwise uncontroversial edits? Would that be a "pattern"? Hard to prove, but certainly annoying to the editor(s) who cannot address/fix the articles they care about. Even if the other party would be doing so unintentionally, the editors who cannot respond to concerns raised on articles they have created/significantly edited in the past would become increasingly frustrated. PS. I've posted some comments on Ed's page per his suggestion (see User_talk:EdJohnston#Discussion_spinned_off) which you may find of interest (basically, I believe that the interaction bans should not relate to content). PPS. Please note that I could've filled an AE request against an editor who tagged an article I created and significantly expanded, but instead of adding to this stupid warfare I am trying to reduce to battleground by fixing/removing pointless wikibureaucracy that adds to it. If, however, nothing is done and drive-by tagging and disruptive editing that VM and I describes continues, I may have no other recourse. PPPS. I am not giving any diffs on purpose, as I don't want to give an excuse to any battle-minded partisan to "do me a favor" and run with them to AE, firing yet another shot in this moronic harassment conflict. But yes, this drive-by tagging and so on is occurring. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 19:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for amendment to lift the interaction ban between Russavia and Tammsalu

Please see Wikipedia:A/R/A#Request to amend prior case: Russavia-Biophys. I mentioned your talk page as one of the places where discussion has occurred about this issue. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

topic banned for no reason?

see this please, I still didn't fully understand why I was banned for 3 months without a warning and without editing any page that's not a talk page or my userpage. I removed that sentence you were complaining about in the moment I saw that Nableezy complained about it-- Someone35 (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You have a new message here.-- Someone35 (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Return to admin-land?

Re this voluntary self-abnegation. From your logs, I see that it continues. Please consider rejoining your colleagues in their daily toil. Unless it was to conserve your personal time, in which case I understand. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It's mostly summer travels, which have mostly ended by now. I should hopefully become more active in the days ahead, although I have a lot of real life matters to attend to (it's my last year in college) so I probably won't be that active until next year. T. Canens (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Stale?

Sorry, but you know what? It's about time that admins around here got some balls and enforced violations. I have had to endure some of the most disgusting harrassment and personal attacks on this project, all the while admins sit around on their arse and ignore it. Thank god for the EEML leak, because even then I would still be having to endure such things. Oh wait a fucking minute...I AM!!

Is there any reason that you have closed as stale a report of an editor breaking their interaction ban with me, whilst engaging in the same type of despicable personal attacks that they have engaged in in the past? It is only stale because, surprise surprise, admins can't be arsed doing the RIGHT thing and stopping editorial harrassment.

You have now knowingly and willingly allowed these editors to continue with the exact same behaviour. Thanks for nothing. --Russavia Let's dialogue 09:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For being WP:BOLD and using WP:IAR to fix The Issue. Cerejota If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 06:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for doing this. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Strongly agree, many thanks Jebus989✰ 06:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! That was awesome work. -- The Anome (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
As I wrote on ANI, thank you for taking care of this, and I hope there's not too much blowback from it. A nasty task, but a necessary one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Student Nitric Oxide Explorer

Could you userfy this for me in my userspace? I think it needed some fixing but was not otherwise problematic. Thanks!--Cerejota If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 06:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks dude, awesome!--Cerejota If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 06:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Timotheus Canens! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Abell 2147

Hello. I just fixed it up and sourced it. Could you please restore it. It is entirely new, and has none of Marshallsumter's content left. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk)

 Done —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks David. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Please see this discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll get to this soon, but I want to take a more detailed look first before I respond. T. Canens (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration. Meanwhile that discussion on AGK talk page was archived here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
OK. I'm tentatively of the view that a reduction to something like 3 months may be appropriate, but I'd like to hear other editors involved in the topic area first, so I'd like to see a formal appeal at AE to allow others the opportunity to comment. T. Canens (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

question

I know there is a wall of text at my AE. But because you are responsible for prior topic bans and seem to be an expert in this sort of situation, I figured it would be worth a shot to make my point known. I self-reverted after the 2nd edit, I explained my reasoning in talk, and from then the discussion has gone on smoothly. Jim was not involved in the article at the time and had not been notified of ARBPIA.
I totally understand the importance of 1RR, but I must protest a suggestion of a topic ban. Just review my contributions, the articles I have created, the blurbs in ITN. I cited a similar case in the AE, where another editor wasn't sanctioned after he self-reverted an edit in spite of violating 1RR. I'm just looking for an alternative here. Please just think about it. WikifanBe nice 00:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
You like to repeat the word "self-revert" as if it's a panacea. It's not. An xRR violation for an otherwise exemplary editor can be overlooked if there's a self-revert because everyone makes mistakes occasionally. When you keep getting into trouble - and with a history like yours, you should have known that you were treading on very thin ice already - self-reverts aren't good enough. T. Canens (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I had to look up panacea because I have never heard of that word. Ultimately, you are right. I hope you will still consider the alternative proposals, and if you already have (they were posted after your original weigh in) and have nothing to add - I'm at peace with that. I get the no-nonsense vibe of ARBPIA, and have been given plenty of opportunities to sabotage.
And while I did do my best to keep myself on top of "thin ice" lately - the removal of the tag, though removed again by another uninvolved admin, cannot be ignored. I get that T.C. This isn't meant to be a suck-up or anything like that. I'm at a point in life where Wikipedia is slowly becoming less and less a part of it. I hope you can consider this new 0RR alternative, and obvious any violation of it would end result in indefinite topic as suggested by Wood. Think about it. WikifanBe nice 09:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Edit: And as I urged a few times in the AE, I hope admins set on topic bans review skim my nearly 1,000 contributions since August - creating articles, participating in AFDs, collaboration, etc. I posted a few examples in the AE after your first comment. Contributions that have mostly been overlooked aside from Cerejota and Cptono. The flotilla article has a tight lead, thanks to a collab with Night and a few others. If those edits are going to be my final serious contribution to the topic area (outside of the 1RR event), then at least it made the article good enough to be posted on the main page. I'm okay with that. WikifanBe nice 09:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I definitely see where you are coming from. We have a number of editors in different topic areas who contribute good content but, for one reason or another, have problems getting along with other editors. I'm not sure - the problem may be your age or your personality or something else. The failed mentorship did not do you any favors at all - indeed it worsened the matter considerably. Currently, I'm afraid just don't see a way for you to contribute to the topic without getting into trouble. T. Canens (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Electrosphere

Timotheus, weren't you supposed to wait a week after tagging Electrosphere before deleting it? I looked at it last night and thought that there was some good material in it, but didn't have time to work on it. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#User:Marshallsumter disrupting Wikipedia for "research" purposes.. While PRODs indeed have a one-week waiting period, these deletions are not PRODs. The consensus at ANI is that articles created by this particular user are pretty much always (1) OR/SYNTH, (2) copyright violations, including copying of other Wikipedia pages without attribution, or (3) both, and therefore need to be deleted. T. Canens (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Can a new Electrosphere article be created? Not that I'm in any rush to do so. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Definitely. T. Canens (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Your mass deletion

Just wanted to drop a note about your mass deletion. I support this action and think it's one of the few correct applications of WP:IAR that I've seen. I'm posting this for the record, but also to thank you for your actions in protecting the wiki. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you from me too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar


 The Surreal Barnstar
Regardless of my opinion on the way I feel the situation should have been handled, your action was boldness personified. too many admins sit on their hands, afraid to do what needs to be done, when it needs to be done. You took the path less traveled and made a difficult decision that needed to be made. Bravo. Trusilver 21:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

More than one kind of I/P ban?

Per the argument of some, bans that mention 'pages' related to the I/P conflict should cover the entire article, while people banned from the 'topic' of the I/P conflict may edit non-I/P material on pages tagged with ARBPIA? This would require reading through all the talk page notices of everyone still banned from I/P. Is it the right way to proceed? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Fun timing. I already opened up a request for clarification on it. You guys have done alot over there but this decision should not be left up to you since it as partially your doing. Of course those editing could shoulder the blame.Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the problem that there is no standard template for the topic ban with standard wording if there would be such template it will solve the ambiguity--Shrike (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Templates are the problem. The use of template like wording has already happened unfortunately. It sucks that editors assumed that "broadly construed" meant "don't edit anywhere near it" and opened up AEs about it. At least Sandstein kept a standard even if it frustrated me at times.. Cptnono (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
My view is that that argument is simply pure wikilawyering. It neither comports with the normal understanding of a topic ban nor have any perceivable benefit, and applying it retroactively also have serious fairness concerns. Topic bans should be all construed in the same way unless there's clear evidence that the admin imposing it intended it to be construed differently; I see no evidence that AGK intended this to be anything but a normal topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It could be considered wikilawyering if I were trying to twist the language of the ban to custom-fit User:Supreme Deliciousness. That's not the case, though. I went by the most readily-accessible literal reading of the topic ban left on his Talk page and at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#2011_2. The "broadly construed" aspect wasn't even a consideration – it ought only to have been a consideration if I was bringing an AE against SD for a page not explicitly within the scope of I/P. I appreciate that you and User:EdJohnston are dispelling the fog around these issues now in the AE thread, but I'm still left without any clear reference point for future Requests: I still have received no response to my query on the Discussion page from over a month ago, and no one's offered any concrete insight into what constitutes a stale diff. I'm being threatened retroactively with sanctions for perceived violations that no one can direct me to to read about.—Biosketch (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Stale Infraction

For future references what is time frame after that the infraction considered stale and on what wiki policy or decision of WP:ARBCOM you base it?--Shrike (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The exact time frame is not absolute and depends on the particular circumstances. Very roughly, you should have a really good reason before bringing someone to AE over something more than a couple weeks old. By analogy to WP:BLOCK#Blocks should be preventative. T. Canens (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be stated directly on the boilerplate on WP:AE to prevent future cases of misunderstanding like the last one.--Shrike (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
At the 3RR board, the 'stale' cases are those where nobody is continuing to revert, so it is unclear whether there is an ongoing dispute. Blocking for a conventional 3RR should probably not be done more than 24 hours after the person's last revert unless there is a whiff of disruption. Such a limit is OK for 3RRs but for edit warring cases several days might be OK (in my opinion). The closest analogy to Tabbouleh is probably a 3RR situation. So two weeks sounds pretty stale to me. Maybe at AE we could have a one-week limit on reporting 1RR violations, after which they are stale. (Or, they can be counted as part of a pattern of bad behavior, but are not reason for a sanction in themselves). EdJohnston (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Anyhow I don't think its correct to accuse someone in frivolous request as there is no written policy or warning when you post such request.--Shrike (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Some things are simply common sense. We do not have to catalog every possible method of disruption and write them into policy before they can be the basis of sanctions. It is obvious - or should be - that digging up three-week-old diffs in order to get a perceived "opponent" blocked or topic banned is not acceptable. T. Canens (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
If it was common sense then Biosketch would not file his request and I wouldn't start this thread.This is not something very obvious and like in 3RR board there is warning that talk specifically about recent violation.In WP:AE there is no such warning.So it wouldn't be fair to punish someone for that.--Shrike (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
No reasonable editor, especially someone who has been involved in a good number of AE cases, would have considered it appropriate to dig up ancient edits in an effort to get another editor sanctioned in the absence of any recent misconduct. We don't have to warn for every possible variation of misconduct before we can impose sanctions for it, or there will never be any sanctions as people come up with creative ways of attacking each other. T. Canens (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand your position but don't agree with you.I still think there should be a warning on WP:AE.--Shrike (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for not blocking me...

...and also for you explanation re. stale/fresh. If what Roland has stated at SD's AE has any clout, I also want to make it clear that I myself "don't recall ever having been warned by anyone about frivolous AEs", neither did I know my counter-report against Asad was to be considered what is termed here as "frivolous", having never been aware of the protocol. Anyway, regarding my "pattern of misconduct" for what it’s worth, I wish you to take a look at the following similar diffs in other areas and contemplate why they are deemed acceptable, while those highlighted by Asad are not:

  • this against this. (Noting that the image was added by Grim23 with the following caption: “Occupation of Fortnum & Mason during the anti-cuts protests” [3])
  • this against this
  • this against this.

--- Chesdovi (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If your argument is that you've gotten away with similar misconduct before, I fail to see how that helps your case. T. Canens (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_AgadaUrbanit AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011
Hello, Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Notification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_AgadaUrbanit AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

WP:AE#Jonchapple

Hello TC. I was about to close this AE with a 3-month topic ban. At the last minute Jonchapple made an offer of better behavior. Do you want to check the AE to see if this would change your advice on what to do? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

help

Hello, I'm a student from NNU. Would you please come to see my article if you're free? Military training and education in China I hope you can improve my article and give me some suggestions. Thank you very much.--NNU-01-panglinan (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Tim, please see this discussion. And re your comment on "not getting it" here, this edit helped me a lot. Respectfully, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


Notification

Re this comment your input is welcome. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Shekou Railway Station

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shekou Railway Station. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quentin Smith (talk • contribs) 11:17, 29 September 2011‎ (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens/Archives/2011/9&oldid=1262462120"