Wikipedia:Administrator review/Timotheus Canens

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

So, it's been a year now, and I think it's time for some feedback.T. Canens (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good admin, makes reasonable AfD/DRV closes, nothing to complain about. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I always like to thank administrators who participate here, because it reflects well on you that you do. I see you around from time to time, and I cannot think of anything that I would regard as a problem—just helpful, noncontroversial work. I agree with King of Hearts that it looks all good. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm late to the party, Tim, but I did want to let you know that I appreciate your work here. You seem to be many places at once, and doing a good job on many fronts. Keep up the good work. See ya' round Tiderolls 20:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though I've never seemingly interacted with you, I've followed your actions in various venues. I've always been impressed with your ability to stay above the fray, notice when things are at the proper point, and be decisive in a way virtually no one could ever impugn (such as your ANI closes). Your work is definitely appreciated by this editor (and probably a lot more). And, thank you for subjecting yourself to an admin review. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have incorrectly claimed consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Timeshift9. 10 Delete, 7 Keep is not consensus for deletion. --Surturz (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Surturz - your closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Timeshift9 was inappropriate. There was no consensus, much less a "general consensus", and as this was an MfD for a user page it should only have been deleted if there was a clear consensus to do so. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good admin, but I don't think that you have to protect the page and especially with cascade. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 12:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Three Delete versus two Keep is not consesus for deletion reguarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Deep (2nd nomination). I would also like to add that when i tried to solve the matter on his user talk page i was liquidated with a vague Delete reasons seem strong to me when i clearly pointed out that one of those Delete reasons was a mere offensive statement towards Sabrina Deep and that two of the other Delete reasons were anachronistic since i had enriched the article with information and sources which rejected the objections.

--Engenius (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above comment is by someone experiencing some sour grapes at the moment over an AfD, and likely a DRV, that didn't go his way. Canens' deletion discussion closures are always among the more well-reasoned, I have never had a problem with him at all. Tarc (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your good work, T. We need more level-headed people with respect for process and collegiality like you. Sandstein 17:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have always foundd you to be very sensible and reasonable. I often see your name around and I have no complaints. Acalamari 11:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You moved to delete my page twice. The first time failed. The second time, despite not having a 2/3 majority, you deleted it and I can't even find the page anymore. Seems a bit high-handed to me. Yes, I have a personal stake but I don't understand how you can go about dismissing so many "keep" opinions and just delete an article. Seems highly irresponsible. - Jesse Liberty
You patiently explained things when asked, but took some trouting to do so ;) So speed in response, and clarity in initial approach might be opportunities for improvement.--Cerejota (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:Cerejota about response speed but that a petty stuff really what more troubling is giving a severe punishments for mild offences compared to other admins at AE and rarely gives second chance to users to prove themselves.--Shrike (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TC might have his heart in the right place but he does not understand the blocking policy. This would not be a big deal but since he has decided to get involved in arbitration enforcement it compounds the issue. For example, I have asked for a topic ban since I think it would help everyone out. Instead, TC has disregarded it and made a block. The block was a little off since even though I deserved a spanking, he chose to make a block several hours after the disruption had ended. Blocks are to be preventive and not punitive. He also ignored requests on IRC and has ignored the ARBPIA decision on decorum (I called another editor a "cunt" and TC actually did not make an ARBPIA sanction). He does not understand administrative functions on Wikipedia that he has chosen to volunteer for. He over thinks things to the point that it inhibits his ability to use the tools he has somehow earned. Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timotheus Canens seems to be a responsible admin who does a lot of good work, and he is willing to make hard calls in WP:TAGTEAM areas. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't normally comment on these things, but I've worked with T. Canens on many Arbitration Enforcement (AE) threads so I am familiar with his work. At AE, I have found him to be hard-working and have good judgement; he always clearly explained his decisions, and there were few of his decisions that I disagreed with (although in some cases, as with all administrators, I may have reached a different conclusion). Elsewhere on the project, he has never given me cause to question the good impression I have of his work as a sysop. I have not encountered him in an article-writing context, nor in many other project venues, but looking at the MFD that Surturz and Nick-D have discussed, I would probably have (after much thought) reached the same decision. I don't think the consensus is very clear, and I would have preferred more input before deciding the outcome, but the arguments for moving the content of the userpage to an off-wiki location like a blog are compelling. Furthermore, the argument that the content, whilst not wholly constructive, is still acceptable could have been mitigated by a compromise whereby the subject of the userpage moved the content off-wiki, then linked to that content on his userpage. However, I probably would have opined in the MFD as a participant rather than close it, because, having seen many people use their userspace as nothing much better than a personal Soapbox or Blog, I have a lower tolerance than most for those who have those types of userpages. What I think is more important is that T. Canens did not seem to balane the arguments in the MFD very clearly, but rather only stated that there was a consensus in support of the view that the page failed WP:SOAP and WP:NOTBLOG. I do think that the closure in question could have been executed better. Such is my view alone, however - and I also do not think this represents a wider problem with Timotheus' performance as a sysop. AGK [•] 20:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.