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
→‎Topic ban of Tom harrison: @T. Canens: So, how can we resolve this?
Line 46: Line 46:


::::::::@T. Canens: So, how do you recommend we resolve this? [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 01:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
::::::::@T. Canens: So, how do you recommend we resolve this? [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 01:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm going to take a look at TH's edits in a few weeks, and lift the ban if I think it is appropriate. That's pretty much the only thing I can promise right now. TH can of course always appeal his ban to either AE or ArbCom. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens#top|talk]]) 01:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


== Article: Candy Young ==
== Article: Candy Young ==

Revision as of 01:13, 13 February 2012

Please click here to leave me a new message.
AfC submissions
Random submission
3+ months
2,509 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)

mQENBFDdJN0BCADjDFGKV41olt0YbRaxABn319KM8idSEt5KGMI5S7R1te5zlf24
QpHbMKJm46M1ZlvRsOtD7PRUOVXFSYE4jm7THfGJcqXjkdu7k6nbZxuKe3LDJdQv
9bc0zbUFO+gusmBR6xZMM2l0e23mRXKroB6KfawGq6o4OBPhqjx8u9TkxpwlIhCs
aMe97XGQOoPf7h20K+vlekItzyx87/U7oIsKGBwSF4tHak/EjVu3hFbRcny9nUej
nx1cBXm5X6yzWSybraujrglwISIog21evh1Jrw+i/xtYa6ZYqDKHPMp1+dHjPlNV
AudIcjq97iiq6kYPtHcgzKMORB4T+R5gQXNhABEBAAG0MFRpbW90aGV1cyBDYW5l
bnMgPHRpbW90aGV1cy5jYW5lbnMud3BAZ21haWwuY29tPokBOQQTAQIAIwUCUN0k
3QIbLwcLCQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEPoukYdWZeaKTZsH/jt3
W+xFPXlavHwA4kain3SXH9wrYCFHpnCCySWN3eN3BGaRf/TxwVsAxZocZ1P0U2H4
Il75FZ4TscdeqOha8ESbc79NAP/oTjRzqJNV/1ljsdHsaRSkc1Tfu4iTwWC3I2Hb
Wj0FtLs08YdE94DhJGmSyZWb7p6nSTr22O0nH4dT4sM7HO/LsnDj44q2uSu2R950
VfP5S3XVOoijR5TP7QhkLZDTdb8b6HqRaWSoIsK70XBKk/voTAZe2bOCqrlUK59H
O7tyHyoPK1Jcz2QmkFOmK/U5ot5m0S/GvhWvTLLmcAPIJO9/SqsJY8mX6ax09XxE
QjAehIm5tOW00ukfkyu5AQ0EUN0k3QEIAOtGhpLp4zwGN0ZuSfA2TfDKq7qZB/Mp
L9ZBzepRpKIPj4pcLdJNwQgYmb2XxElLWwOwsanN61yFZ2P3CUF89I5RgmzkyrSK
nD4qgvMCKthLPI3FEnaXL+LR9br7VCeoYfjQdGrSsxOFtdfUQ0SsJCUvLduBblaA
mEwOCarpG6cegl4Tbq0Fqg2lw8MZAQc7/nrZvpCkIk9ZYMYGFUaGW875xbCUt0T8
df6WG7KSWRrS2jy/2rgUmDNiyHI4LOUe5+8C6w0eOOLumKwdD3tXMtbuFNFluYzK
2nVIHrc3D2WmUnPd/ESed3ms4YCuGEGiybcKtyCILVhBOv2LGPLgKAsAEQEAAYkC
PgQYAQIACQUCUN0k3QIbLgEpCRD6LpGHVmXmisBdIAQZAQIABgUCUN0k3QAKCRCU
2R0REJq2jqcNCADHnXpwpgbwGV+pd4tU05yHqMwIbyvXFlO/ScY9vKgtPlAU3Go+
wM3pEXeBUftCYzHraYOigc3GeZAM7QbQqyUMzWjrNDPb5/LWCiEvKoJu223+x432
E1kCmRqC8WEBj+Dz5dHUUd3EOfoE3pOjw+EXdgyMsj6HwxeygocTZvkcur9yLZhh
mXYehcJVJXvjZDNdFnCv7lnXTM8McccsAOQj3uwVONabk92aQ8dZq7GXS0F2BE2t
APz5NJ3Rz7jjnqI9YjTkuSKuNZGMeeQVuF7ae0ee97qZ4lVDHgR2ZlfxRzzO2kYp
tIMv2QG0MB5cRLXKluJAIQ13qqAXqF/Aolc9vj4IAJY0PXpMKmsYheWGwuf3LYMb
mT1C2zXal1t1A+p0KpMk7phQLSfjgHVUFzNIg245tQpHR9AORRGARggpjcfRJVb0
RZzYPvHFDZx+W+lannAKVCSEjlOywf6HOk4Wf80llpXyf6ahAUqypvOzOVV0y9QV
myOQP36XL7IA7f1Eet/sgRMWQsQNxXCPGyv34/BOUiE8V5NBaYUMw9XYy6OOTfA7
/L5xAA5WPbBQe4KgfoCF/QWxJGbINtOf/guw3CKlRebqWdzmzADviIoCT6OImcrM
RJHS+H7wL/fXRWGP9wOsqWclTtrP0QWRPEJpNK8RhWcYEOkIE0at8WzKSMtvfBc=
=oCnW
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

Topic ban of Tom harrison

It actually pains me to bring this issue here since I have no beef with User:The Devils Advocate...but in light of your comment here...how does his request for arbitration enforcement against User:Tom harrison stack up. The Devils Advocate was topic banned for 30 days until recently over the same topic...Tom harrison commented at that particular request against The Devils Advocate...The Devils Advocate has been blocked twice in 3 months over this topic...Tom harrison hasn't been blocked once in 8 years of editing.--MONGO 04:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The request has merit. It is therefore by definition not sanctionable misconduct. Trying to infer "retaliation" from a comment months ago is also rather farfetched. And even if the report were somehow established to be retaliatory, that won't affect TH's topic ban but only lead to a topic ban for TDA. T. Canens (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay...well, none of that explains how Harrison's edits were problematic...less than perfect, perhaps, but the guy has dedicated 7 years to such difficult areas and has many thousands of edits that were perfect. The Devils Advocate immediately restarted where he had left off after his 30 day ban so it's not like he moved on to new horizons and then came to arbcom enforcement...there's plenty of talk around the wiki about how were losing good editors...much of it in regards to GA and FA level writers...while they are important of course, you also have the gatekeepers like Harrison that keep those difficult articles from turning into a mishmash of misinformation and conspiracy theories....yes, we may very well be losing valubale seasoned contributors...no doubt due at least partly to the chilling effects of telling our best that if you're not perfect, then they can get lost. As a side effect of all this, I see you paid homage to Mkativerata who has handed in his admin tools over this issue under a self proclaimed "cloud"...but Tom Harrison still gets a get lost...and this arbcom enforcement action also cost the website User:A Quest For Knowledge...who has told me that the place has become intolerable...I am tending to agree. For the record, I didn't want Mkativerata to do anything other than admit that this might have been overzealous and at the least, reduce the ban to a set term, say 30 days (even though no topic ban was ever justifiable to begin with...you guys could have simply protected the page)...but Tom Harrison doesn't even get that much.--MONGO 06:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tom harrison's edits cited in the request are plainly NPOV violations. As Mkativerata explained in his comment at AE, it doesn't take a genius to recognize "the tone of non-neutral advocacy" apparent in those edits. Now perhaps there are some extenuating circumstances about those particular edits we are not aware of (were they provoked by some sort of baiting, for example?), but if there were any, none was apparent from the thread or the edits. Page protection is for legitimate content disputes. An obvious NPOV violation is by definition not a legitimate content dispute. Occasionally editors can get burned out and carried away from long-term working in a difficult area, and this might be one of such cases, and Mkativerata's ban, as he intended it, is basically saying "OK, you need to take a break from this area, and come back when you can show that you are ready to edit it again". This has been the approach taken in a number of recent AE cases, as we shift gradually from a fixed-duration model to a return-when-you-can-show-you-are-ready model of sanctions in a number of areas.

You know what really strikes me as ironic? If the goal was to reduce Tom harrison's ban, driving Mkativerata away was a really counterproductive way of doing it. By driving him away, all that's been accomplished is that no single admin can reduce the ban, and any reduction must go through a full fledged AE appeal (with a high bar requiring "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors") or ArbCom, so what Mkativerata intended to be an easily-lifted "indef" ban that may well just last a couple of weeks (if Tom harrison's work is as good as you say it is) has become instead a real indefinite ban that will probably take something like a week just to go through the lifting process. This is particularly ridiculous since the entirety of his so-called "involvement" consisted of two !votes in an I-P related naming RFC a few years ago, and he only declared himself "involved" out of an abundance of caution. And what did that caution lead to? Groundless accusations of COI and "bias on Jewish-Palestinian issues". Also, for that matter, the 9/11 attacks are not within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area either, so the COI/INVOLVED accusations are doubly groundless. (WP:ARB911 postdates WP:ARBPIA by more than 3 months, and were the 9/11 attacks in the I-P area Arbcom would not have passed a separate discretionary sanctions for 9/11.) Terrific work indeed. T. Canens (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@T. Canens: None of this had to happen.

There was no need to impose an indefinite, broad-ranging topic ban for a first-time offense against an editor with 8 years of service and a clean record. There was a multitude of other options available. Did you consider any alternatives? Unfortunately, the quick rush to judgement prevented any real discussion of how to help this editor to return to productivity.

And I have to say, I'm extremely dissappointed that you would say something like "if Tom harrison's work is as good as you say it is". Are you honestly trying to tell us that you didn't bother researching this editor's history before topic banning him?

If the admins at AE can't be bothered to do some basic research, then they shouldn't be at AE. Plain and simple.

And if you lement Mkativerata's departure, then don't overlook your role in this matter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The record is clean, to be sure, but the offense is about the most blatant one I've seen at AE in a long time. Rarely do we get an NPOV violation as clear-cut as this. I think this is probably true of the other admins who commented in that thread as well, and pushed us toward the more severe end of the spectrum of available sanctions.

As to the breadth of the topic ban, that's a necessary consequence of the NPOV violation. If you can't, for whatever reason, adhere to NPOV on page X, then there's some pretty good reason to doubt that you can adhere to NPOV on a page Y related to X as well.

You know what? I've seen TH's work before when I was looking into previous 9/11-related AE requests, and I actually had a favorable impression of him. So I was actually quite astonished that he would make those edits and actually defend them at AE, and I had to go back and double check that this is the same TH I was thinking about. Out of necessity, however, we cannot examine all his 42000+ edits in detail before we settle on a sanction. The parenthetical is there because I try to avoid expressing my personal opinion on the quality of someone's edits at AE, as a general matter - but of course, it's now taken as evidence of laziness. So we are biased if we express an opinion, and lazy if we don't? Good to know.

As to your question on the other page, if the misconduct is directly connected to the edits at issue in the request, feel free to raise them directly, otherwise, a new thread is preferred. I don't think we've ever sanctioned someone for "retaliatory filing by proxy", and I doubt that we ever will have such a case unless there's pretty strong evidence that (1) the request is meritless and (2) the subject of the previous thread directly caused the new request to be filed. Evidence of (2) is unlikely to be ever seen by us. T. Canens (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have written elsewhere that indeed many of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, espcially in the first few years after the event did have strong anti-Israel overtones...this has abated some and the conspiracy theorists learned soon that their efforts to go off on their tangent would gain little footing if it had any anti-Semitic overtones. Tom harrison's general thesis on this issue may have been somewhat off on a tangent now a decade after the event. I don't know what the usual offenses reported to AE look like since I don't generally dwelve into that realm, so I'll have to take your word on it these were the most blatant you've seen in some time (seems preposterous). As far as Mkativerata, I doubt anyone including myself and most certainly Tom Harrison wanted to see them retire, but since I think there were several different ways to go on this matter, I think the overzealousness of all the involved admins in this case indicates they all need to reconsider their adminship. I used to be an admin and I blocked plenty of trolls, plenty of troublemakers and obvious vandals...but I never once topic banned a long term almost perfect track record fellow administrator (Harrison had stepped away from editing for awhile and gave his tools back but can get them back upon asking) or editor from an area where they have been so helpful...why not a final warning, page protection (there was a minor edit war going on), or at the least, a 30 day topic ban? I guess the best way for me to have avoided a deadminning would have been what?...tell our best to screw off? Nevermind...we'll have to agree to completely disagree on this matter, so you can surely have the final word.--MONGO 16:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@T. Canens: I don't know what happened. Tom is one of the most level headed editors in a very difficult topic space. Maybe there's something about anti-Semitism that pushes his buttons? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@MONGO: The typical alleged NPOV violation we see at AE (in fact, one is at the top of that page right now) is whether an infobox should say "X Israeli settlers" or "X Israelis" when describing the population of Golan Heights. Compared to that, what TH wrote really stands out. Fortunately, Mkativerata has agreed to me taking over the topic ban so that the streamlined appeal process will remain available for TH. T. Canens (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AQFK...that isn't it. The fact is that the earliest 9/11 conspiracy theories had strong anti-Semitic overtones...or at least anti-Israel ones. I read somewhere in an authoritative source that most publishing houses that were presented this message by various authors refused to print the material due to the problems it would create...so the conspiracy theory propaganda profiteers that did get books printed omitted these aspects, though the underlying covert operation/Israeli involvement nonsense is still available but it's bundled in with other fanciful notions so it doesn't look like the centerpiece argument.
Tim...Harrison is not going to be asking for clemency from the acting admins on this matter...I don't think I would either. But least you've bothered to comment on this matter and though I still think that this was a horrible decision, I respect you for being frank and remaining civil.--MONGO 05:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@T. Canens: So, how do you recommend we resolve this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take a look at TH's edits in a few weeks, and lift the ban if I think it is appropriate. That's pretty much the only thing I can promise right now. TH can of course always appeal his ban to either AE or ArbCom. T. Canens (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Candy Young

A few years ago the article Candy Young was deleted by you based on a consensus agreement among members of the community that she did not meet notability standards. I am now interested in recreating her page with additional information - specifically, she now chairs the American Political Science Association Committee on Teaching and Learning, she coauthored the official guidebook on assessment practices used by the APSA, and she was a contributing author to a book written by the current editor-in-chief of the American Political Science Review. Does this satisfy notability such that the article can be recreated? Adamc714 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with this subject to offer any opinion, but I can userfy the article for you so that you can update it with the recent changes and then seek review at WP:DRV. T. Canens (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timotheus_Canens&oldid=476557660"