Mon 1st August 2011, 9:21pm
QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 26th May 2011, 4:07am)
I've been motivated to look into the activities of Timotheus Canens (T-C-L-K-R-D)
because of his vigorous pursuit of block/ban enforcement, using Revision Deletion for harmless edits, and the Edit Filter, continued substantially after it became useless. He's been scotched on both of these, since, as to being able to continue that way, but I just noticed this:Arbitration Enforcement request on Gilabrand
Timotheus Canens filed the AE request. He commented extensively, arguing for what amounts to punishment for past offenses. I.e., the position being expressed is that a ban does not exist to protect the wiki for a period, but to punish the user. If the user edits during the period, even if all the edits are useful, Justice Demands Blood. Time Must Be Served.
The justification for an indef block, as given, is the ingenuousness of the user. Not damage to the wiki, no harm is asserted anywhere.
Timotheus Canens is the filer of the request, but edits the section for "Uninvolved administrators."
and Timotheus closes the discussion and indef blocks Gilabrand.
There was support in the discussion for the idea that not all the IP edits were hers. The topics of interest are reasonable as Wikipedia topics for people in her area, Israel. There is also a very reasonable possibility that if there is one editor in a building, that editor might talk to others about Wikipedia and edits, and there might even be activity thus appearing on coincident articles.
Sure, Gilabrand's comments were suspicious, but to translate that into a conclusion that she was lying is quite offensive. There was no consensus that she was lying.
She had charged Timotheus Canens with "proxying for a topic banned editor,"
which was actually a reasonable charge. TC evaded the question asked about that.
Absolutely, and absent emergency, which wasn't claimed and clearly did not exist, TC should not have been the one to close and block, or recusal policy means nothing.
Apparently, it means nothing. I've seen a pile of these "community discussions," though I don't recall a close with action by the filing party before.
Below is a copy of a request to Arbcom for my unblocking after I was recently blocked indefinitely by T Canens. I never did receive a response from Arbcom. My request reads:
Administrator Timotheus Canens, acting purportedly as an "uninvolved administrator" has indefinetly blocked me, following my filing of a statement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ment#Communicat
to Arbcom, which was an invited reply to an AE request brought by a separate party.
Timotheus Canens' blocking of me should be disallowed, because he is obviously an involved party. He made a statement during an earlier, directly related request for Arbcom clarification; he was listed by me as a party in that request; and he then asked a clerk to remove his name as a listed a party because he was "not involved". His request for delisting was disregarded; which infers that, in the opinion of Arbcom, he was indeed an involved party. Relevant diffs are provided as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=436678672 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=436578971 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=436574101
The sequence of events that precipitated and/or was used by T Canens as ostensible "consensus" for the block he imposed on me is as follows, and my statement is contained at this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...t_by_Communicat Can anyone tell me why an indef is not a good idea? T. Canens (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't. Though my reading of the enforcement motion only allows for a week long block. The rest would be on your own authority, but as far as I can tell a good call. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
And done. One week AE block + indef. This has gone on long enough. T. Canens (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Your action is appropriate, given that Communikat seems unable to reach consensus with others. Unless we want to *give* him all these WWII articles so he can slant them according to his personal POV, there seems no way forward. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The comment of uninvolved administrator Eluchil404 was made fully three days before I filed my statement, which means he was not in possession of the pertinent facts and matters on which he was commenting. Specifically: "...as far as I can tell (indefinite blocking is) a good call." While the comment by EdJohnston makes it clear he is under the impression that the AE request relates to World War II, which it does not. The AE request relates directly to a South Africa article, which has absolutely nothing to do with World War II. It is reasonable to deduce that he does not know what is actually at issue.
That then is the "consensus" upon which Timotheus Cannens apparently relies. He blocked me just nine minutes after I filed my statement in reply to the AE request; and then arbitrarily closed the matter very shortly thereafter, without allowing any reasonable time for community participation. The manner and method of his arbitrary and evidently illegitimate conduct suggests a motivation of "payback" on his part, in retaliation for my having questioned his actions and omissions in earlier, related proceedings to which he was an involved party. This is clearly beyond the boundaries of acceptable ethical conduct on the part of an administrator.