Jump to content

User talk:Timotheus Canens

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Censor (talk | contribs) at 23:20, 10 December 2010 (→‎reversion on list of banned user: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please click here to leave me a new message.
AfC submissions
Random submission
3+ months
1,672 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-----

You work to fast

You did not ask me what happen. You also have wrong assumption. Those who request my blocks, just deleted my editions, with arguments provided in history. They did not used any arguments just they deleted my editions. This is my arguments after all:

The fundamental legal codes written by nationally elected set of people are named Constitutions. The idea: "by people for people" was developed during the Enlightenment, by philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. The name 'Constitution' originates from Constituante - the French people assembly 1789 to constitute a democratic nation.[1]

Firts who start talking instead deleting was: Professor Storyteller on 1st December. Rest just deleted my edition. Thus I request on you to talk with me before you announce me to be guilty and block me. More, I need not to have consensus, this is not obligatory. It is "invention" of such people who want --216.171.96.18 (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)--216.171.96.18 (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)push an editor away. That is all. Scientific work is simple: I give argument and provided support, somebody wants delete he should give counterargument. No contra argument edition stays. Simple, please do not bounce around editors! If somebody does not have arguments as BilCat and Dayewalker do not have can ask for "dispute" resolution. Please look for the individuals activities on History List, article 'Constitution' since 26 Nov. This are arguments?[reply]

ClueBot Reverting possible vandalism
BilCat Reverted apparent incorrect

Please be serious. Best regards,--Cleaghyre (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, announcements such as "I need not cooperate with anybody" and that "Consensus is not important. Important is science, true and facts" is entirely inconsistent and incompatible with the model of this project. You may wish to read WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:TRUTH. You may, if you wish to question the block, start a thread at the appropriate noticeboard, though I seriously doubt anything good would come from it. Moreover, if you continue to act as you did now, then in all likelihood you will soon be blocked indefinitely for disruption. T. Canens (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you personality are bigger problem than the editors. If you do not understand that facts are more important than consensus it is tragic. You are administrator and you have disturbed sense of value. Whatever the secondary "principals" you use to block opponents it is manipulation. Science - so any valuable encyclopedia have to be supported by facts not by consensus - if most people agree that Earth is flat it does not qualifies as scientific fact. And it is where we are. You actually press on me to revise you position in the community. If you disregard factst and looking for some rules (secondary in fact) you are the destructor.

In fact you send me a threaten that I will be blocked indefinitely if I will keep my rules: 1) I need nobody consensus to introduce reasonable facts 2) I need not cooperate/consent with anybody who disregard facts (You got something from context ... Where it is?)

I will repeater for you: Consensus is not important. Important is science, true and facts You support such disruptors like:

ClueBot Reverting possible vandalism
BilCat Reverted apparent incorrect

I demand that such individuals will start to provide con-facts before reverting, and you support them.

I was hopping you will not answer and stay away from my attempts to improve the article, but I see you want suppress me by ill secondary rules. That is bad. My project will be to remove you as destructor first. I will stop editing articles instead I will sacrifice all my time to fight you. You do not deserve to be administrator. --Cleaghyre (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email

As requested, instead of filing an SPI I have emailed you the evidence for suspected sockpuppetry by a banned user. nableezy - 02:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser says Red X Unrelated. T. Canens (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats odd, Im not usually wrong. But thank you. nableezy - 19:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim, I do not believe that email SPI filing is such a good idea. IMO the accused users should be given an opportunity to defend themselves. I believe email SPI filing should be done in exceptional circumstances, and a topic ban of a filer is not one of them. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Defense at SPI is 95% of the time useless, especially when technical evidence is involved. Most of the defense comes in two varieties - "OMG we are not socks how dare you say that" and "I have no idea what you are talking about". There is a reason why we do not require (and indeed sometimes discourage) notification in SPI cases. T. Canens (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK,fine, but I still see no reason for SPI to be filed over email. IMO any SPI report that does not involve special cases (like for example outing) should be filed in an open. I also was not able to locate "topic ban" as one of the reasons listed in your "My off-wiki communications policy:" Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any "compelling reason" will do. That the user would have been blocked had they posted on my talk is a compelling reason for them not to post here but to use off-wiki means such as email. Preventing unnecessary drama and battleground behavior is certainly also a good reason. Also, sockpuppet reports never have to go through SPI in the first place. I routinely ask for checkuser off-wiki when I see enough grounds for a check but prefer not to make an unnecessary kerfuffle on wiki or scare a genuine new user if my suspicions turned out to be incorrect. T. Canens (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for taking time to clarify your position.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Journalist - IBAN

Heyo tmcs,
I was in the midst of a dispute with Nableezy about how to describe the writings of a certain controversial Israeli Journalist, Gideon Levy, and I was promoting the listing down of non-opinion/non-partisan sources so that we can get a better perspective that will help us build consensus to how the topics of his writings are perceived/listed (notability of topics). Indeed, me and him have had trouble in interaction and I tend to find the IBAN a blessing -- to be frank, I felt that he was ignoring facts as they were being presented to him and that his response would be by repeating my complaint against him, only in harsher, and more personal tones -- but this is besides the point. I definitely think there was merit in the interaction ban, but I would not want to promote the "consensus" as a single user or without a wide array of sources (we currently have only 2) on the Levy issue. Anyways, I was thinking of suggesting to Nableezy on his talkpage if he would like to lookup more sources and add them on his talkpage but I thought it would be best to ask first if this would be considered an IBAN violation as I have no intention of creating further drama -- to the contrary, I am interested in preventing future drama by giving him the chance to weigh in despite the lengthy sanction recently imposed on him. I apologize if I elaborate too much, btw, but I always feel as though no one remembers/knows what's going on unless it is specifically explained. Disagreements aside, I am interested in promoting long-term articles that are factual and this is sometimes difficult in such a heated topic area where many editors are more interested in their personal truth of good/evil when reality is far more complex. Anyways, let me know -- I am also ok with you making the suggestion that he list (non-opinion) sources on his page and I will review them and take the solid ones into full consideration / consensus building. Perhaps if you make the note it would have less of a chance for drama inducing (e.g. claims that either of us is violating the spirit of our sanction).
p.s. English is not my first language and I sometimes get scattered-minded when composing long texts -- apologies if there's some repetition/breakups in grammar, etc.
p.p.s. I hope this does not come off as an IBAN violation. That is definitely on a list of things I am not interested in doing.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 10:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like that acronym :) It would, as you are not permitted to post on his talk page. See WP:IBAN. T. Canens (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of my idea that you offer him the opportunity to list down sources on his talkpage? I think it not the worst idea to give an early approach into the collegiate effort and it might help alleviate some of the tensions that could build up otherwise. Thoughts/Suggestions? JaakobouChalk Talk 11:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are prohibited from commenting on or mentioning Nableezy, by name, by pronoun, or otherwise. Consider this your only warning. T. Canens (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for treading on muddy waters.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 21:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki

Shuki? Clearly not a new editor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Different continents, according to a CU. T. Canens (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked anyway. I don't care (or know) who it is, but it is clearly not a new user. T. Canens (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is enough for a check but… what about JackJud? 100-edit user only comes out of hibernation whenever a Jewish or Israeli-related AfD/CfD shows up: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Also, most of his other edits are just adding Jewish categories to pages [11], [12]. Bulldog123 03:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that simply because someone was apparently not a new user was no reason to block them. This person may have a legitimate reason for an alternative account, or may simply be a quick learner. It is wrong to block an editor without any evidence at all simply because he is not a new user, per WP:Sock puppetry. Take the person up for an SPI but don't go blocking editors simply because they appear to be experienced. This is wrong. 172.129.11.197 (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim I am absolutely shocked at this. I can bring you a list of users I can think offeon the top of my head whose early edit history shows very decisively that they are not new. If this is grounds for block with no questions asked, should I expect that they will be blocked? Some of these users have been editing in high volume for a few months and have not been blocked for some strange reason. 74.198.9.177 (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have to say that I agree with the sentiments expressed above. I looked at the subject editor's contributions and saw nothing that would cause alarm bells. When I first started editing, I was technically inept and in some respects, I still am but not everyone is as bumbling as me and some learn quicker than others. Just my two cents for what its worth.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right... so... which one of your friend's socks was that? Sockpuppetry is legitimate as long as it's not used to vote-stack or sway consensus. See no reason why they can't come forward if everything checks out. Bulldog123 06:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jiujitsuguy (and the IPs from Virginia and Canada). By that test, any number of editors, including editors in the same discussion such as my good friend User:Therexbanner, would be blocked. I would think the normal checkuser process is the way to start such an enquiry.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could these people be any more self-incriminating? Now honestly. Bulldog123 09:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Award of a Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
This barnstar is hereby awarded for extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially in regard to arbitration enforcement.

Awarded by PhilKnight (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and of course, congrats! T. Canens (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new Guildenrich sock?

[13] Definitely not a new user, he is clearly following me around as his contribs on Dec 6 are on the same pages as my contribs from that day. Most likely candidate is Guildenrich. Athenean (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CU says Red X Unrelated. T. Canens (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR notification on behalf of blocked user Anyuse110

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Cousin Marriage and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tagging

Hi. No worries, but could you give me your outlook on this? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First it was not checked (it was a DUCK block), so the tag is inaccurate. Also, unless the user is indeffed, I don't like tagging their own user page (it's too much of a black mark when they resume editing); the tags on the socks (I probably should have tagged User:Anyuse200, thanks for doing that) and SPI archive are good enough for tracking purposes. T. Canens (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reversion on list of banned user

Hi,

Why did you do this revertion below? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AList_of_banned_users&action=historysubmit&diff=401690677&oldid=401690148

thanks --Censor (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/134169/constitution
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens&oldid=401691940"