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
→‎AE: a question for clarity
'after the nomination was complete' → 'by the time the nomination was complete' (using Reword)
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 37: Line 37:
:[[User:T. Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:T. Canens|talk]]) 13:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
:[[User:T. Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:T. Canens|talk]]) 13:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
::Hence an AfD nomination by R. of an article created by M. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tammsalu&diff=prev&oldid=446385413] during the standing AE request was ''not'' a violation of the interaction ban? [[User:Hodja Nasreddin|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Hodja Nasreddin|talk]]) 04:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
::Hence an AfD nomination by R. of an article created by M. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tammsalu&diff=prev&oldid=446385413] during the standing AE request was ''not'' a violation of the interaction ban? [[User:Hodja Nasreddin|Biophys]] ([[User talk:Hodja Nasreddin|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. [[User:T. Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:T. Canens|talk]]) 08:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


== ''The Signpost'': 22 August 2011 ==
== ''The Signpost'': 22 August 2011 ==

Revision as of 08:42, 24 August 2011

Please click here to leave me a new message.
AfC submissions
Random submission
3+ months
2,699 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:Timeshift9 (unresolved)

Hi Tim. We previously discussed User:Timeshift9 at User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/8#User:Timeshift9. Per your suggestion, I started an ANI discussion, but it was archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2 with no guidance as to how to proceed. Another MfD is undesirable. As GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) wrote at ANI, "To keep taking Timeshift's userpages to MfD as xe creates them? This will frustrate both the community and Timeshift. I think we need to decide on some general agreement instead of forcing Timeshift to keep trying different things until one version is acceptable." What are your thoughts about how to resolve this user page issue? Cunard (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay. I am traveling so Internet access is rather sporadic.

I'm not exactly sure what's the best way to approach this. The problem, I think, is that we don't have quite a clear-cut line. Right now I can see three things that can be done. It would be best if the matter can be settled by simple discussion with Timeshift9, but given the history here I doubt that they will be very receptive. It might also be a good idea to get NOTBLOG clarified via an RfC since it is a bit of a grey area. The last option is another MfD, which isn't really the best way out of this, as you noted, but if all other alternatives are exhausted and you still want something to be done about it then that's the only option left. In the end, though, I'm not quite sure it's worth all this trouble. I think virtually everyone agrees that the userpage is not that great of an idea, but I can't help but wonder if spending this much volunteer time attempting to remove a page that probably not many people will see anyway is a wise thing to do.

Oh, and I just noticed User:Surturz/AdminWatch and the associated ANI, DRV and MfD. Oh well.... T. Canens (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, and no worries about the delay. I understand.

I will drop the Timeshift9 userpage issue for now, as I don't want the resulting drama and the abusing of the closing admin. However, if Timeshift9 expands his userpage with even more blog-like material, I will reconsider renominating it at MfD. I'm glad you missed User:Surturz/AdminWatch until it was over. I wish I missed that needless drama. Best, Cunard (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clerking at SPI

How does one goes about that?--Cerejota (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally you ask at WP:SPI/CN, though I believe that the general agreement among the current clerks is that we have enough clerks right now. T. Canens (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens&oldid=446457749"