User talk:Timothymarskell

Open House

Any Wikipedia Editor can post what ever question they want on this page, when ever they want to. —Timothy Marskell

in case you didn't know...

It's reassuring to see you. I quietly slipped away from FAR recently. It looks like the e-mail of your old account is still enabled, so if you want to resurrect it I believe you can generate a new password by having one e-mailed to you. When you go to login, there should be a link "Mail me a new password". Best wishes, DrKiernan (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow...

...I apparently had a major blond moment and forgot that you are a former FAR delegate. So, you obviously know everything I posted in my comment on the Fermi paradox FAR. Please forgive me if I sounded idiotic :) Although astronomy/astrophysics has never been more than a hobby (I couldn't manage to get past Calculus II in school - too theoretical for me!), the Fermi paradox is an interesting subject. I have added the book you recommended to my reading list - it sounds like a good read. I hope you will be able to work on the article, and please let me know if there is any way I can be of assistance, despite my lack of specialized knowledge. Dana boomer (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Done

Duly watchlisted. Hope you're well. Thinking about FAs again? I did have a wild hair to try to do one of the core topics -- probably North America -- but have managed to resist so far. It would be a titanic exercise in summary style, of course; rather different from most FAs. Mike Christie (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

So loooong. It's good to see you. Tony (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Manama incident

The article Manama incident has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This lone incident is not notable as Wikpedia is not news.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Supertouch (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Supertouch. I can't seem to find where the deletion discussion is. Could you give me a direct link? Thanks, Timothymarskell (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There's none. He's thinking of speedying, which I dont think will cut it. I think a line or two to put the incident in context, and its fine. Ceoil (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There is not discussion page because the Prod banner has been removed. I wasn't thinking of CSDing it—that's why I Prod'd it. I still think this article should be removed per wp:notnews...--Supertouch (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

account blocked by ArbCom.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Admin To be perfectly fair Tim, I had no idea how to nominate an admin either! (I'm still pretty naive when it comes to behind the scenes Wiki rules). However, I think I have it down. Please accept my nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Timothymarskell. Serendipodous 18:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Hello Tim - long time no see - you shouldn't need to do this as my understanding is you can switch admin status from one account to another (IIRC Bishzilla and Bishonen swapping tool/status). My only question (cue spy music), why are you you and not you? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC) I suspect that will come up on the RfA; I'll answer there. It's good to see your sig. Timothymarskell (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I just saw your note about lost passwords on your old account. You needn't worry as you can just ask to be emailed a new one :) PS: I was buffing up Betelgeuse but new user Sadalsuud has done an amazing job so far...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Timothymarskell This is unneeded. I've put it on ice. If it is you, it's not needed. If it isn't you (the old marksell acct), it will only cause an unneeded drama fest. Email arbcom about your situation. Including the pwd thing. This is not like Bish's situation as there we all knew it was her-there was no doubt. Here, no offense meant, it could be an imposter. The old acct edited 13 Aug and the new one 18 Aug. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC) No, I don't think I'll be e-mailing Arbcomm. Thanks though. Timothymarskell (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC) If you don't verify your identity, you can't very-well claim credit for the User:Marskell account. If you do verify your identity, no RFA is needed. –xenotalk 14:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC) A Wikipedia account is not an identity. You could just ask me questions at the RfA and decide whether to vote in favour of my having the tools or not. Cheers, -- Timothy Marskell I really don't reccommend that. For one thing, you're asking people to support an account that's not even two weeks old and assume you're the same person as an old account. I'm also a crat and if you want to verify to me, that's an option too. In your post on the RFA, you said someone from arbcom can contact you. I'm also a sitting arb and I've already contacted you. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC) You are claiming to be User:Marskell: you will need to verify this somehow, to allay any concerns of impersonation. –xenotalk 14:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC) PS, your email is turned off. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC) My email cannot confirm my identity and I am not required to confirm it to edit. Honestly, I suggest you simply ask me questions at the RfA and decide for yourselves if I should have the tools. Cheers, Timothymarskell (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Then what would you do about the provision of WP:SOCK that only allows each individual to have one non-bot sysop account? Courcelles 15:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Just to chime in from the perspective of someone who's been participating in RFA since 2006, I'd oppose strongly for 1) you claim to be an admin whose password went wonky-- only one admin account per customer, 2) if you are he, you know how to reset your password, 3)knowing all this, you should know better than going through RFA, 4) you know how to establish your identity or how to ask for instructions, again making RFA a weird course of action, 5) if you are an impostor, well that speaks for itself. Dlohcierekim 15:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Hi everyone. You can only confirm my identity if you've met me before and then you meet me again. I don't need to have any communication with anyone via e-mail if I don't wish to. Take care, Timothymarskell (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC) There are some similarities between the two accounts' online personalities, but there are enough differences that before the RfA I was already wondering a little bit. I wouldn't be too surprised if this really is Tim, but it's not clear to me from the interactions I've seen that it's the same person. Some form of confirmation is necessary; and Tim was always such a reasonable person that denying that it's necessary is one of the things that makes me wonder. It's also very unlike Tim to say that he couldn't find the deletion discussion; see two sections above this one. Tim knows the difference between a PROD and an AfD. I suppose that could be a mistake, but it felt wrong. His writing style feels subtly different to me too, though that's a judgement call and could be influenced by the surrounding conversations. And there have been other clues. Tim, if it's you, sorry for the doubts; if it's not .... Mike Christie (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Hi Mike. When you and I discussed on-site how to reform GA and FA we both played by the Wiki rules -- we did not, in my recollection, ever exchange e-mails to influence on-site decisions. I'm going to continue to play by the rules. I have no intention of e-mailing anyone at Arbcomm, which is a body that never "sits" anywhere. I would post my main e-mail account in your case, Mike -- but I fear newer Wikipedians would spam it under the mistaken assumption that they are doing the right thing. Timothymarskell (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid that none of this makes any sense; the only rational conclusion anyone could come to based on the available evidence is that you are not who you claim to be. Marskell could very easily recover his password just by asking for it to be emailed. You must surely be aware that if your RfA goes ahead it will fail spectacularly. Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Hi Malleus. I hope all is well. We've had a number of interactions on here so you'd probably be able to identify me if you simply asked me questions at the RfA about previous opinions, comments, etc. Timothymarskell (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC) We have, but of course the problem is that there's nothing I could ask you that someone else couldn't research the answer to by looking through either your or my contributions. I really don't think that an RfA under those conditions would be at all a good idea. Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Your RFA is on hold Please do not transclude this RFA until it has been removed from "on hold" status. This could be accomplished by contacting ArbCom, the bureaucrat who placed it on hold, or by making a post at WP:BN requesting it be allowed to proceed. –xenotalk 18:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Hi again xeno. I appreciate that you are trying to help but I won't be contacting anyone by e-mail. Any editor can post a question to me on this talk page as I've noted at the top. Timothymarskell (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Those options don't necessarily require emailing anyone. The RFA is on hold and can't proceed until it is no longer on hold. –xenotalk 18:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC) We've asked you to contact me and/or arbcom and you haven't. We also asked you to confirm both accounts and you haven't. The problem with not using email is that would likely perforce require you to put sensitive info on wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Rlevse, we're electronically contacting each other right now! Regarding my avatar, you're simply going to go back to someone else's handle on-site and/or via e-mail and ask if Timothymarskell is Marskell. That's pointless -- you'll be going in an unconfirmable circle. I'm getting lunch! Timothymarskell (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Regardless of the fact that the link between the two accounts is unverified, the sockpuppetry policy holds that no one person may have more than one (non-bot) administrator account. So if you are indeed the same person, and you want to re-run RFA on this account, you'll first need to relinquish adminship on User:Marskell. You can do this by posting to m:SRP while logged into the User:Marskell account (you'll first need to establish a unified login). –xenotalk 18:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC) TM-your lack of cooperation is not helping you at all. You've been asked direct questions that you do not answer. You are the one making this unconfirmable. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC) It has apparently been established that any account claiming to be the alternate of an administrator account may be immediately indef blocked and talk-page blocked without further discussion until confirmed. I'm surprised that this account hasn't been indef'ed already. So, without mentioning the issues discussed, and without posting any emails, can you please list some of the articles or FARs that we have discussed off-wiki as confirmation that you are Marskell (or at least have access to Marskell's email)? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Wouldn't that be easy to guess from his contribs? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Could you guess which on-wiki contribs were accompanied by off-wiki conversation and which were not? I don't think you could, reliably, unless you were privy to them. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Often you could. I've often seen "you have an email" postings on users' talk pages. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, that's true. Nevertheless I have reason to think in this case that an accurate answer to my question, listing more than one or two pages, would be difficult without recollection of the actual conversations, or access to email archives of them. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Hi Gimme. I'm trying to think of something only User:Marskell would know. Wikipedia:FAWCP -- would anyone but me remember creating this redirect? Timothymarskell (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC) The database remembers, so easy to discover. Do you remember ever emailing me? Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Even if we were willing to take this as certification of your identity, that still wouldn't sort out the issue of User:Marskell still holding administrative rights. Why not reset the password, seek the removal of your administrative rights at meta, and certify the link with a logged-in post? –xenotalk 22:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I may well be missing something here, but I thought that it was Marskell losing his password that prompted the creation of this account? Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Yes, well the account has email enabled so it could presumably be easily reset. Unless they've lost access to their email account too? –xenotalk 22:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC) <<EC>>That seems to be it. Being absent minded, I've lost mine too. What you do is you have the system email you a reset, then change the password. In my case, to one I forgot. (oops) Dlohcierekim 22:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC) If that is the case (that he has lost access to the email account associated with User:Marskell), I don't see how this can move forward - especially with Timothymarskell talking past everyone writing to him. How did you resolve it? –xenotalk 22:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure this will prove anything but it may be worth a try, particularly if the response is rapid. Timothymarskell, you/Tim once said that I was trying to make case law. What was the topic? As far as I can tell this is not easily searchable in the database, though if someone succeeds in finding it please say so, since that would mean an impostor could also find it. I'm pretty confident that Tim would recall this. If the response is not rapid, or is negative, it doesn't prove anything, sadly, but a quick and accurate answer would make me think this is much more likely to be Tim. Mike Christie (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Internal search engine is apparently more robust than you think: [1]. –xenotalk 22:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Eek. Xeno, that probably just curtailed an honest attempt on Mike's part to identify me as me -- a good example of how the interface has gotten so far ahead of itself that experienced users simply give up. I don't know what to say here, my friends. Circles! Timothymarskell (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC) As he requested, it proved that an imposter could have just as easily found the answer. Do you have access to the email account attached to the User:Marskell account? If not, do you have any saved emails from your time as User:Marskell? –xenotalk 22:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Xeno, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to answer any more of your questions. Mike knew me under the previous handle and you didn't. I won't be looking at this talk page again tonight. Timothymarskell (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC) As you wish. –xenotalk 22:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Xeno, as you say, I requested anyone who could find that comment via a search to post to that effect. That Timothymarskell does not see that that makes any apparent recollection he might post useless in establishing his identity is poor logic, an error Tim rarely committed. I am finding it very hard to believe this is actually Tim. If it is, he is deliberately varying from his normal posting personality for some reason, perhaps as a prank; I can't see why he would do that, but I don't know Tim well enough to be sure it's not him on that basis. I do see other clues that this isn't Tim, but I'm reluctant to disclose them as they are subjective, not conclusive, and there seems no reason to give an impostor pointers to how to improve their performance. One other point: if this is in fact an impostor, there is no reason to believe that Tim has lost access to the Marskell account, and though he rarely checks it, he does do so periodically and could respond there. I suggest a post to his talk page and a wait of a couple of months. Mike Christie (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I agree, Mike. if this were Marskell, he would have to be behaving very unlike Marskell used to behave. I am surprised the extent of "AGF" shown here, when none was shown in a nominally related case. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC) I am persuaded that this is not Marskell, partly because of the non-reply to my question about emails above but also because of certain stylistic and behavioural characteristics. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC) With all due respect, this person doesn't seem to have the knowledge that someone who passed RFA would have. He/she is dodging the questions with nonanswers and generally being uncooperative, which (hopefully) no administrator would ever do. --Rschen7754 07:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC) This is Marskell I am not going to reply to the emails piling up in my inbox because I have never seen them before. I also cannot respond to four or five different editors tripping over themselves on this talk page. The simplest way to solve this would be to let the RfA go forward. Timothymarskell (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC) In light of the available evidence, that RfA would be sure to fail spectacularly certainly not do so well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the observation, Bongwarrior. Timothymarskell (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC) That would seem to refute the theory that you'd lost your email access as well. You know as well as anyone here how to reset your password and get back control of your account. This discussion can serve no further purpose. Dlohcierekim 09:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC) RfA Hi. I've untranscluded your RfA again. Please do listen to what people are saying - that it should not be transcluded while it is on hold and awaiting an ArbCom decision, and that you cannot nominate a second account for admin while you already hold an admin account. Who knows what the decision will be? Maybe they'll find a way to re-open your old account for you and block the new one? Maybe they'll permanently block the old one and let you try with the new one? Whichever way, I honestly don't think your combative approach to ArbCom and to Wikipedia policy is likely to help you, so I really would urge you to just show a bit of patience and cooperation. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the note, Boing!. I'm actually following Wikipedia policy quite closely. As for being uncooperative, I don't see where. Take care, Timothymarskell (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC) You don't know how you're being uncooperative? Words fail me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Hi again Boing!. Given that our atavars have been interacting for less than 20 minutes and that I (probably) have never met you in-person you're not in a position to judge whether I'm being uncooperative. If I have met you in-person, j m'excuse. Timothymarskell (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I've read every word you have written here as Timothymarskell, so to suggest I only have 20 minutes experience of your existence seems a tad disingenuous - I am entitled to form an opinion based on what I have read, have done so, and I offered it to you in what I thought was a constructive manner. I really was only trying to help, as I really don't think your current combative approach has much of a hope of succeeding - which I think should be apparent to anyone who's already an admin, or is a suitable candidate. Anyway, I won't expend any more effort here, because you don't appear to be interested in the opinions of anyone who's trying to help you. Good day, and good luck. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Thank you :) Timothymarskell (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC) WP:ANI Perhaps we can sort this out at WP:ANI. Dlohcierekim 09:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Nothing for me to report at ANI; that page is confusing anyway. Thanks. Timothymarskell (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Manama incident

I have nominated Manama incident, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manama incident. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Scott Mac 13:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Timothymarskell (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This account is now blocked

matter resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, Timothymarskell. Unfortunately, because of the difficulties associated with linking this account with that of Marskell (talk · contribs), and with the repeated attempts to start a request for adminship for this account, the Arbitration Committee has decided at this time to block this account. This is a good time for you to take a break from editing Wikipedia. Please do not use any other accounts to edit. Should you wish to resume editing in the future, please contact me or another arbitrator directly. You and I have many mutual associates who can provide you with information to contact me by email or through more direct means. Risker (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Hi Risker. Unfortunately, no one from the Arbitration Committee has decided to talk to me on this talk page (unless you are on the committee?). If that could be done perhaps there would be no need to block this account. Timothymarskell (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Excuse me -- I notice you refer to yourself as an arbitrator. Where on-line may I view the decision to block me? Timothymarskell (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Risker is an active member of the Arbitration Committee, and the onus is on you to contact them, not the other way around. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC) When you're in a hole stop digging. There are several ways to take over the accounts of inactive administrators, but this is probably not the best of them. Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC) You can't see it on-line, as the decision was no doubt made by the Arbitration Committee through a mailing list. To pre-empt another question, as this is a privately owned website (as I'm sure you are aware) you don't actually have any comeback in respect of the block of this account. (note I'm not an arbitrator, just commenting) Pedro :  Chat  20:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I'm going to concur with Pedro and Risker. You've been disruptive regardless of who you actually are and until you agree to change your disruptive behavior, your continued participation is untenable. MBisanz talk 21:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I actually came here to give you a warning that your repeated attempts to post an RfA, despite repeated notes about needing to contact ArbCOM or get your Password restored was turning into a disruption, and could result in a block. Guess I was too late.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay folks, time to clear off here please. Timothymarskell, several of the people who work in the featured content area can provide you with either my personal email address or more direct means of contacting me if and when you are in a position to return to editing in your usual manner. I am indeed a member of the Arbitration Committee, as is Rlevse, who was communicating with you earlier. Risker (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Since none of the fine people of ARBCOM have actually decided to supply you with an email adress to get hold of them here it is: arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)