User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2013/4


Colton Cosmic

Alison already emailed me on the same subject; see my reply to her. Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration: Argentine History

Hello, Timotheus Canens. I'm one of the parties involved in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History. I exchanged e-mail with two experts in the subject under discussion. One is David Rock (profile), author of Authoritarian Argentina: The Nationalist Movement, Its History and Its Impact. The other is Michael Goebel (profile here, here and here), author of "Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History". Since you are one of the drafting arbitrators in the case, I thought you would be interested in seeing their opinions and show them to the other arbitrators. To what e-mail should I send the messages? (I must warn you that there is personal information about me on both) Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want it to be seen by everyone on the committee, then you should email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. T. Canens (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I sent two e-mails. Please let me know if they arrived. --Lecen (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Got them, thanks. T. Canens (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

Unintentional transclusion in one of your old archives

FYI: User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2009/10 transcludes Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Active participants</nowiki> which as of March 2012 is a redirect to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. This affects backlinks, as anything linked from WT:AFC is also linked from your archive page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Content vandalism of "2012 Italian shooting in the Arabian Sea" article by Italian origin IPs

Kindly help do something about the severe content vandalism. I have tried to revert the page to it's last stable situation but it has been repeatedly vandalised with POV text over the past 48 hours 81.240.143.138 (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14

Hi Timotheus Canens! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 18:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Wikimon

Hi there. A while ago, I notice that you blocked The Wikimon (talk · contribs) after using CheckUser, and he appears to be needing help regarding why he was blocked if he was editing constructively. I was wondering if you can post a reply to him to help out. ZappaOMati 01:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was fast. I'll post another message if needed. ZappaOMati 01:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Uh, actually, can you still post a reply to him? He just requested an unblock, and I think you could explain things to him. ZappaOMati 02:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi Tim, I noticed your post explaining things at the talk page there - thank you for that. Would it be ok to email you a couple questions about this sometime tomorrow? I don't want to spill any WP:BEANS about CU or anything, or start a public discussion where another editor may not be able to respond. I promise that I won't refer to you as "singing" :-) — Ched :  ?  06:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Heh, so he did contact ArbCom after all. I was contacted by Ajayupai95 by email asking me to undo the block that I made when closing out the SPI case. (I do remember being sufficiently annoyed at the SPI records and having to do some transitive logic to figure out who the master actually was. I also remember something very suspicious about the filer, doing a few !checkuser pings, and then making a carefully worded comment to tip the reviewing CU off once it was clear I wasn't going to get an answer). At that point, I took away talk page and email as it appeared to me that he was going around and forum shopping for an unblock, and directed him to ArbCom.
The story I was sent by email seems... a bit bizarre, and has too many logical gaps for me to believe it without any other evidence to corroborate it. Regardless, Ajayupai95 has confessed to using the YoyoJacob13 account. I get the feeling that this is good hand/bad hand socking, if you want my personal opinion. I am willing to forward the email to ArbCom upon request, if it winds up being helpful and does not duplicate what was already sent to ArbCom. --Rschen7754 06:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I suspect that he sent us the same story, since "bizarre" is an apt description of the story he sent us. And that story is also inconsistent with the CU data. T. Canens (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • @ Tim - thank you for the offer. Since they have emailed the committee, then I don't really see anything I can do. Appreciate that I'm welcome to email you though. — Ched :  ?  14:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

email

I did end up sending one. There were questions regarding CU data which I didn't want to ask online per WP:BEANS. If you don't have time to reply, I do understand. — Ched :  ?  00:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Replied. T. Canens (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Scholarscentral SPI

Hi -- thanks for the CU check on this SPI ([1]). A question, though: did you check against the previous socks (and the master, User:Scholarscentral)? I'm convinced Chicago1432 (talk · contribs) is related through Rich1982 (talk · contribs): when Chicago1432 uses an edit summary like "stop intentional deletions of other editors-discuss in talk" [2], it's hard to imagine that it isn't the same editor who uses the edit summary "editors are requested to edit at talk page, instead of intentional deleting of all content" [3] (User:Rich1982). There's no reason to doubt the CU findings, but I wonder if there's enough behavioural evidence here to justify a positive sock finding; another factor is Chicago1432's note about being (temporarily) in Chicago at a conference [4]; that might explain the negative CU finding despite the behavioural stuff. Thanks, —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Chicago's IP isn't related to anyone else's IP in the archive. However, you are correct that if he's only in his location temporarily, then the CU data is of little value. T. Canens (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Would it perhaps be worth another CU check then in a few days? If the conference is over and he returns home... The reason to press it is that Chicago1432 is very clearly someone associated with the company and is editing in a purely promotional mode (something that is perhaps sufficient justification in its own right for further attention/action). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

101.0.64.0/18

It appears you hardblocked this range recently, and a user, Akuri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is caught in the block. (If you're interested in the circumstances, please see 1, 2, and 3.) Could you determine what's the best way to proceed here (softblock, IPBE, etc.)? Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Tim, I am curious if it was your intention to block Akuri's IP range. I don't see any discussion on-wiki to explain this action and there was no notification of the action. Should your concern have been the straight IP editing, would you then be willing to give the named account a block exemption?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
It's a webhost range that behaves similarly to an open proxy, and has previously been abused by at least one indef-blocked sockmaster. He needs to meet WP:IPBE#Used for anonymous proxy editing for IPBE to be granted; any reason why he must edit through it? T. Canens (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The way my internet connection has been configured the past few months, that is my default IP range. If it really is a webserver, then I guess that's what my employer uses. If it stays blocked I'll have to use proxies to post, which is what I'm doing now.
I think you're mistaken that this range was abused by a sockmaster, as Mathsci said here that I'm the only person who edited from it. Also, this point about it being a webserver was previously discussed by the community here, which reached the conclusion that the hard block of the range should be changed to a soft block. I think you should respect the conclusion reached by the community, and don't unilaterally take an action that goes against it. 2001:DA8:203:503:D6AE:52FF:FE7B:19FC (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I do not see a consensus in that discussion, and Mathsci's statement is incorrect (unless, of course, you and said sockmaster are one and the same...) T. Canens (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Whoever the sockmaster is, it's not me. I've edited from lots of IPs, but Akuri is my only account.
Whether you think there was a consensus or not, King of Hearts' reading of that discussion's conclusion was that the hard block should be modified to a soft block. See his summary in the block log. Are you reversing his modification to FPAS's block because you think he misread that discussion's conclusion? 2001:DA8:203:503:D6AE:52FF:FE7B:19FC (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Tim, who is the sockmaster you are talking about? Was there recent activity by the sockmaster that prompted the range block? Knowing this would be helpful.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Akuri is misrepresenting me. I just looked at parameters put into the toolserver and I have no idea how far back records go. TC is the checkuser with experience at SPI and knowledge that I certainly would never even claim to have. Just changing the parameters in the toolserver makes all sorts of things happen.[5] Akuri has IP hopped and without batting an eyelid used multiple open proxies. He knows that is disallowed, but does so regardless. There are many other problems with his editing, but various administrators, for example MastCell, have already commented on those. Mathsci (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's strange to see you suddenly showing up in another discussion that should have nothing to do with you. Are you the one who asked Timotheus Canens to reinstate the hard block? 2001:DA8:203:503:D6AE:52FF:FE7B:19FC (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Nothing strange at all. Almost all arbitrators' talk pages are on my watchlist and I saw your lobbying (yawn, yawn, yawn). You quoted or misquoted me and Timotheus Canens responded. The previous amazon open proxy you abusively used was reported at WikiProject open proxies by me and blocked for two years. This question, "Are you the one who asked Timotheus Canens to reinstate tg he hard block?" is just plain bonkers. Mathsci (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Is King of Hearts' user talk page on your watch list as well? You immediately jumped into the discussion there before you or I said anything here. 2001:DA8:203:503:D6AE:52FF:FE7B:19FC (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The page is on my watchlist after you edited with 10 or so open proxies, the last of which I reported at the WikiProject for open proxies. It was blocked by Materialscientist. The fact that you find so many ways of accessing open proxies is troubling. Mathsci (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about ArbCom enforcement

I am coming to you because you commented on my case once before, and because you have identified yourself as a member of ArbCom. My issue is simple (I think): According to this section in the ArbCom ruling [6], "Should any editor subject to a restriction under the terms of this decision violate the restriction, then the editor may be blocked for a period of up to one week by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block period shall increase to one year." I quote this because I was blocked once for 72 hours, then blocked for an entire year. I never got my three short term blocks but was immediately escalated to the maximum sanction. Now the same administrator is trying to block me again for longer than a week... forever, in fact - clearly exceeding the recommended maximum block period. (I won't even get into the lack of merit for this decision, but will simply address the break in required procedure.)

Also, regarding "discretionary sanctions", which apply to this ruling, the policy [7] states "Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning" and "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." The blocking admin gave me no required warnings prior to my bans. And I certainly have never been given any counsel, though I have asked for it. Now the same admin wants to impose an indefinite ban, again, without the required warning. I am attempting discussion, but he isn't being very responsive.[8]

My question to you is: Don't administrators have to follow the ArbCom rules of enforcement just like the editors do?[9] I honestly feel I am being singled out by an involved editor/admin who is not following procedure and is singling out editors on one side of an argument, while letting the remaining editors repeatedly break the ArbCom ruling.[10]. By not following procedures, which are there to protect all editors, I believe his latest ban is invalid and I should just continue editing, following the ArbCom rules. And as I explained to the admin, I also believe that a subset of editors are using the ArbCom ruling to flaunt the rules and own the page. How do I get ArbCom to investigate this matter fully.

FYI - a defining moment came with this interchange, initiated by user:ErrantX, who chastised most everyone,[11] and was answered by the SAQ (Shakespeare Authorship Question) main editor,user:Tom_Reedy, who responded with a defiance and an 'up yours' attitude that has defined this debate.[12]. Similarly, this exchange on Jimbo's page [13] also sums upp the issue, with Jimbo even admitting that that "Someone can come in, adhere to policy perfectly well, and get treated very badly. It's an ugly situation."
I have to ask - why is this situation allowed to continue? Smatprt (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Seeking advice

While I've offered input into past SPI's, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrLeeWiki was the first SPI I ever actually opened. User:Jafeluv, another administrator, didn't "see any particular reason not to believe MrLeeWiki's explanation". Was I wrong to open this SPI? Should I have approached this situation differently? Thanks. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 21:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

Open proxies.

Hi. The editor Akuri is continuing to use an illegal open proxy, already identified as such at the WikiProject for open proxies. They have stated their intention of editing wikipedia using open proxies and have made several edits with their registered account. But they also continue to make disruptive edits logged out. Here is an example where the ipv6 open proxy stirs matters up on a blocked user's page, where he is not concerned in any way at all.[14] That ipv6 was blocked a little while ago for 6 months by Materialscientist. His cumulative editing history makes it increasingly likely that these edits have some connection with banned users. The account Mors Martell was no different. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about Doug Christian

Hi Tim, I see your block of Doug Christian. He has added a section (removed by me here) on his talk page claiming to be a sock of Dougweller. With no further information, I'm inclined to think this is just trolling. Can you say who the sockmaster is? LadyofShalott 20:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming Bedson. Should have realised, he attacks me for being very pro-Christian. Not very bright our troll. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
<giggle> LadyofShalott 20:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course, I hate when I go out of my way to help someone, then find out I've been had. LadyofShalott 20:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
It happens to me also. Hard to keep good faith in these circumstances. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)