Jump to content

User talk:Timotheus Canens: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Trout this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
/* Gilabrand's sanction *sign
Line 74: Line 74:
:Nice wikilawyering, but you are changing the subject. I am not a vandal and I am not a sock. I have 28,000 edits to my credit, 27,999 of which you have never laid eyes on. All you saw was Nableezy's complaint, which he withdrew, about removing a triple tag which he himself agreed was excessive.--[[User:Gilabrand|Nopleazy]] ([[User talk:Gilabrand|talk]]) 11:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
:Nice wikilawyering, but you are changing the subject. I am not a vandal and I am not a sock. I have 28,000 edits to my credit, 27,999 of which you have never laid eyes on. All you saw was Nableezy's complaint, which he withdrew, about removing a triple tag which he himself agreed was excessive.--[[User:Gilabrand|Nopleazy]] ([[User talk:Gilabrand|talk]]) 11:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
::Same principle. If there is disruption it does not go away simply because someone withdrew a complaint. You may notice that your self-revert was duly noted by the admins in the discussion, who nonetheless deemed it appropriate to impose a sanction. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens#top|talk]]) 11:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
::Same principle. If there is disruption it does not go away simply because someone withdrew a complaint. You may notice that your self-revert was duly noted by the admins in the discussion, who nonetheless deemed it appropriate to impose a sanction. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens#top|talk]]) 11:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
::::You are also an administrator in the discussion, and you are the one who left the notice on my page. You are the one I am asking to remove it. You have the ''power'' (um, authority) to do it, or tell someone else to do it. You have collaborated to punish me in a way that is disgraceful and blatantly hypocritical. The "discussions" further down on the AE page are a clear and open admission of the bias that exists here.
::::You are also an administrator in the discussion, and you are the one who left the notice on my page. You are the one I am asking to remove it. You have the ''power'' (um, authority) to do it, or tell someone else to do it. You have collaborated to punish me in a way that is disgraceful and blatantly hypocritical. The "discussions" further down on the AE page are a clear and open admission of the bias that exists here.--[[User:Gilabrand|Nopleazy]] ([[User talk:Gilabrand|talk]]) 11:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


==Your imposition of sanctions==
==Your imposition of sanctions==

Revision as of 11:36, 4 November 2010

Please click here to leave me a new message.
AfC submissions
Random submission
~6 weeks
1,242 pending submissions
Purge to update

Notes

Notes
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
July 2010
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
March 2010
PGP key 
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
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=
=oCnW
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

User:68.239.233.45

Please look into it. As soon as your 31-hour block – from 26 October 2010 – has expired, 68.239.233.45 (talk · contribs) went right back to his funny game and vandalized the same article here. Thanks, — LMK3 (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect (I dont mean to question your block just maybe provide an alternative view) while looking at this editor's editing history (since ive tried communciating with them, I feel im a bit involved), I think they are merely trying to re-position the images on the page so the images do not overlap the subject header lines. This is what seems to show if you look at the page's formats after User:68.239.233.45 edited (where the page format actually presents better when viewed on IE than before their edits (dont know about other browsers). They basically just do not know how to position an image properly but i think they have good intentions here. I do not think he/she is deliberately trying to damage or disrupt the page, just needs some guidance on how to do this properly. happy editing. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be correct, but all we can do is to speculate because 68.239 has so far failed to explain the edits - either in the edit summary, or on their talk page. Even assuming that they are not deliberately disrupting, the fact that they did it again after they have been blocked for it once already, and without any attempt to explain what they are doing, IMO is more than sufficient to justify the block. T. Canens (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion of Itamar Ben-Gvir

Hi, You speedily deleted Itamar Ben-Gvir on the grounds that it didn't assert the notability of its subject. Perhaps you didn't realise that the article was very short only because most of it was recently deleted without comment in an apparent act of vandalism by a user who has otherwise done nothing. A link to the article before the vandalism is this one. Clearly this article has problems, but I don't think it is an SD candidate. Perhaps AfD or Cleanup would be more appropriate courses of action? Zerotalk 03:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start a new article there, but I do not feel comfortable undeleting since the revisions you are referring to repeatedly accuses the subject of criminal activity without any acceptable sourcing, in egregious violation of WP:BLP. T. Canens (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Zero on this one. Itamar is certainly N. He does have a colourful past with many allegations which apparently the court always throws out. I'm curious to know that BLP issues were in the article, but all I have is the cache on google of a stub so I'll use that as a base. --Shuki (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Quintana

A week seems rather light for the stated block reason. Was there a reason you didn't leave it at indef? using socks to harrass another user is way beyond the pale. Spartaz Humbug! 13:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was MuZemike's suggestion, and I deferred to him since he ran the check. T. Canens (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Conley

As the admin who closed this as delete, you'll notice someone tried to speedily recreate this. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BJS.Farrauto

You had previously commented, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BJS.Farrauto/Archive. The account has returned to make promo conflict of interest edits at page Brad Sherman. The account has ignored all posts to its user talk page. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to worry too much about a single edit - if they start to do it more continuously, we can consider blocking then. T. Canens (talk) 05:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, will leave it at the one warning, for now. -- Cirt (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Re-block needed

Based on an ANI report I made here, you ranged blocked IP 166.216.130.xx for one month on 10/02. The block expired yesterday, and User:166.216.130.62, User:166.216.130.65, User:166.216.130.71 immediately restored all of the unsourced religious/ethnic/descent categories to BLPs. I will go through all of the edits and revert them one by one, in the meantime would it be possible to restore the range block to prevent further BLP/EGRS violations? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked both for 3 months. T. Canens (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And with that, my sanity is restored. Thank you kindly, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marknutley

Kudos. Balls and a brain, how rare in a Wikipedian!--Scott Mac 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, most of the IPs that came out of the SPI were already rangeblocked by an admin yesterday, so leaving the SPI existent would not have provided much more useful discussion. Good call. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 21:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilabrand's sanction

Hello Tim. If I am not mistaken, it is a common practice at AN3 and other admin boards that if the complaining user withdraws a complaint the complaint is closed without action. Is there a reason this was not done with Gila's sanction? nableezy - 21:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the power of administrators to impose sanctions is not dependent on the existence of a complaint, the decision whether to take action when a complaint is withdrawn is discretionary. We can impose sanctions when there is no complaint. In this case, the history of sanctions coupled with recent problematic behavior counsels against closing it without action. T. Canens (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Power of Administrators? Hah, now we know what it's all about. When someone goes to the police and retracts their complaint, the case is closed. As I expect this one to be, in the interests of fairness and the good of this project.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree, Gilabrand. Nableezy was taken to AE for incivility and it was withdrawn after he recanted. And what is happening months later? Same stuff. You do not have a topic ban. You have a sanction (and the principle of it sucks) but if admins chose to finally step it up then it is a good thing. Hopefully it is for everyone (unlike the Chesdovi getting nailed to the wall and others not) and you can continue your fine contributions with or without reverting. You can do good without reverting so don;t worry about it. It will make coming out of your sanction that much sweeter if you do not constantly edit in breach of it. Not sure if I agree with the sanction or not, Tim. but I don;t think it matters since Gilabrand will continue to contribute in a productive fashion if she chooses to. Cptnono (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I have to disagree"???? What are you disagreeing with? I asked to be freed of restrictions that were imposed unfairly and in order to exercise power over people. Administrators can impose sanctions when there is no complaint? What is this? 1984?--Geewhiz (talk) 08:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change "power" to "ability", if you want. Do we have to wait for someone to complain before blocking vandalism-only accounts we encountered? Before blocking obvious socks we discovered? T. Canens (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice wikilawyering, but you are changing the subject. I am not a vandal and I am not a sock. I have 28,000 edits to my credit, 27,999 of which you have never laid eyes on. All you saw was Nableezy's complaint, which he withdrew, about removing a triple tag which he himself agreed was excessive.--Nopleazy (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same principle. If there is disruption it does not go away simply because someone withdrew a complaint. You may notice that your self-revert was duly noted by the admins in the discussion, who nonetheless deemed it appropriate to impose a sanction. T. Canens (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are also an administrator in the discussion, and you are the one who left the notice on my page. You are the one I am asking to remove it. You have the power (um, authority) to do it, or tell someone else to do it. You have collaborated to punish me in a way that is disgraceful and blatantly hypocritical. The "discussions" further down on the AE page are a clear and open admission of the bias that exists here.--Nopleazy (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your imposition of sanctions

Nableezy withdrew his complaint. Why have you ignored that and written a message on my page about sanctions? Please strike it out. --Geewhiz (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizing my talk page

Now I see you have struck out discussions on my talk page. What is that all about? --Geewhiz (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I haven't edited your talk page since I added the notice, whatever you are referring to it must be someone else. T. Canens (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roman888/HansSolo54

I suspect that these IPs are one in the same with Roman888/HansSolo54. I have complained to ANI. Please look into this and add your input. The investigation I mentioned is the one about 1Malaysia and the IPs. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentsMonkeyassault (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens&oldid=394768178"