| Revision as of 03:33, 9 April 2011 editLudwigs2 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,240 edits →subquestion: ...← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:33, 9 April 2011 edit undoLudwigs2 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,240 edits →subquestion: sigh...Next edit → | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
| :::Ludwigs2 is a party in this ArbCom case, one whose statements on ] were a significant factor in the initiation of this ArbCom case. That he now is seeking action against another user who has examined his recent edits during that case is unprecedented and unreasonable. He seems at present to be disrupting wikipedia to make a ]. ] (]) 20:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | :::Ludwigs2 is a party in this ArbCom case, one whose statements on ] were a significant factor in the initiation of this ArbCom case. That he now is seeking action against another user who has examined his recent edits during that case is unprecedented and unreasonable. He seems at present to be disrupting wikipedia to make a ]. ] (]) 20:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Whatever. just as FYI, I've decided to open up an entirely separate request for amendment on the R&I ruling to deal with this problem. That's the proper place for it, anyway. Mathsci, I'll notify you when I've completed it - probably over the weekend. --] 03:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | ::::Whatever. just as FYI, I've decided to open up an entirely separate request for amendment on the R&I ruling to deal with this problem. That's the proper place for it, anyway. Mathsci, I'll notify you when I've completed it - probably over the weekend. --] 03:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::::: Apparently Mathsci doesn't feel constrained by your request, and continues looking for away to attack me in the case. I'm not complaining, or suggesting you take action; I just want you to see the flaw in Mathsci's character, and why I get so frustrated with him. please notice that I'll continue to let this drop, and remember it the next time you're inclined to take his side (should that ever be the case after this). --] 06:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Tim Ball == | == Tim Ball == | ||
Revision as of 06:33, 9 April 2011
I hold the SUL account for NuclearWarfare
| |||||||||||||||||
| This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
|
Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why. |
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Link in WP:ARBR&I needs fixing, please
Hello NW. Please see the section Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Mathsci topic-banned by mutual consent.
In the wikitext of that section the following line needs editing:
''Modified ] on 21:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)''
'Case amendments' should be changed to 'Case Amendments' so that the link works. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm surprised that the software doesn't account for that.
Fixed, and thanks! NW (Talk) 21:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Caps
Opps! I was going to come back for more copy edits, but I'm glad you caught my error. (I'm thinking about chopping out a lot of the lead.) Thanks.--S. Rich (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- No worries. And I think a cut down of the lead would be well-warranted. Do let me know if you want me to lend you a hand. NW (Talk) 19:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Adding shortcut boxes to arb cases
Hello NW. I've been going though some past arb cases. Nearly all of these cases have shortcuts, such as WP:ARBPIA. Seven of them are lacking a 'shortcut box' at the head of the case, telling what the shortcut is. When a case has one, such as WP:ARB911, it is usually added with this syntax: {{shortcut|WP:ARB911}}. So my question is:
- Can shortcut boxes be added to the cases which have a shortcut but lack the box?
I would take care of adding these shortcut boxes if is kosher to do so. Cases that have a shortcut but lack the boxes are: WP:ARBAA, WP:ARBAA2, WP:ARBLP2, WP:ARBPIA, WP:ARBPIA2, WP:ARBSL, and WP:ARBCC. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- You know, if you were just willing to become a clerk, you wouldn't have for permission to update case pages every time :)
But yes, feel free to add the shortcut boxes. NW (Talk) 17:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
No R&I comment allowed?
I saw your note that Ludwigs2 should not be talking about R&I in a current Arbcom case. Is he under a restriction? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- R&I was just becoming too much of a dramafest, and at best it was only tangentially related to the AE case. So I banned mention of it, hoping to preserve some decorum. Not sure how well that worked out. NW (Talk) 01:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, and subsequently the two drafting members of ArbCom, Coren and Risker. Mathsci (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
AE case
Hi NuclearWarfare.
On your talk page, some time back Ludwigs2 made threats that I could not participate in this ArbCom case. He has exhibited extremely poor conduct before and during the case and now his request, transferred to the talk page of the workshop, is a further example. I have carefully avoided using any statements or diffs that might directly concern me. His attempted procedural disruption will result in further evidence being added and a far more severe admonishment. Xxanthippe does bear a grudge. In a previous case she argued that I should be indefinitely banned from wikipedia; so far, although vociferous, she has been unable to support any of her arguments with diffs. From my perception, this is a repeat performance of the same type of disruption that initiated the case. What undercuts the logic of Ludiwgs2 is that this request has been made one month into the case without any evidence. I already complained to you be email that Ludwigs2 was behaving inappropriately in my proposals section. The disruptive request he has made at the moment is a heightened version of that. Other editors have referred to his penchant for intimidation and bullying. I don't see much difference here.
As you requested, I will not add anything during this UTC day to the case, but I might send an email response to the whole of ArbCom. I am busy preparing my last evidence for the Noleander case: it is quite time-consuming. Mathsci (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- I note also that the arbitrator JvdB moved Ludwigs2's comments to the "parties" section in my "proposed findings" section, which was the subject of my previous email requests. So at least that is resolved. This seems to be another unjustified personal attack by Ludwigs2. What he claims certainly has no correlation whatsover with my editing history since 2006. Mathsci (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is to confirm that I have emailed all members of ArbCom, active on the AE cae, with a message. I have sent a copy to you and the other clerk active on the case. Please feel free to copy it to any other clerks if you consider it appropriate. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- In a reply to you on his talk page, Ludwigs2 wrote, "As I said, at this point Mathsci has nothing pleasant to say to or about me, and I have no respect for him as an editor or a human being." That diff has also been passed on to ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is to confirm that I have emailed all members of ArbCom, active on the AE cae, with a message. I have sent a copy to you and the other clerk active on the case. Please feel free to copy it to any other clerks if you consider it appropriate. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
subquestion
Can I respond to the workshop talk page thread about creating an interaction ban, or should I wait? I'd like to ask a couple of questions so that I can move ahead on that appropriately, but I suspect if I try Mr. Tattle will huff and puff again. --Ludwigs2 18:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please wait. If you think it is still warranted after the time I gave runs out, you are free to create a request here. I would just hold off entirely though. I was informed that a proposed decision will go up this weekend, and comments now are unlikely to change it drastically. NW (Talk) 18:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, this is really unrelated to this case, but part of a longer-standing problem that I'd like to resolve between Mathsci and myself, but yeah that's ok. I can contact individual people in their talk pages if necessary. thanks. --Ludwigs2 19:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ludwigs2 is a party in this ArbCom case, one whose statements on WP:AN were a significant factor in the initiation of this ArbCom case. That he now is seeking action against another user who has examined his recent edits during that case is unprecedented and unreasonable. He seems at present to be disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Mathsci (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever. just as FYI, I've decided to open up an entirely separate request for amendment on the R&I ruling to deal with this problem. That's the proper place for it, anyway. Mathsci, I'll notify you when I've completed it - probably over the weekend. --Ludwigs2 03:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently Mathsci doesn't feel constrained by your request, and continues looking for away to attack me in the case. I'm not complaining, or suggesting you take action; I just want you to see the flaw in Mathsci's character, and why I get so frustrated with him. please notice that I'll continue to let this drop, and remember it the next time you're inclined to take his side (should that ever be the case after this). --Ludwigs2 06:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever. just as FYI, I've decided to open up an entirely separate request for amendment on the R&I ruling to deal with this problem. That's the proper place for it, anyway. Mathsci, I'll notify you when I've completed it - probably over the weekend. --Ludwigs2 03:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ludwigs2 is a party in this ArbCom case, one whose statements on WP:AN were a significant factor in the initiation of this ArbCom case. That he now is seeking action against another user who has examined his recent edits during that case is unprecedented and unreasonable. He seems at present to be disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Mathsci (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, this is really unrelated to this case, but part of a longer-standing problem that I'd like to resolve between Mathsci and myself, but yeah that's ok. I can contact individual people in their talk pages if necessary. thanks. --Ludwigs2 19:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Tim Ball
Hi, NW, You closed on the deletion of the article on Tim Ball, an astonishing move from my perpective. Michael Mann is presently bringing suit against him, and the conservative Canadian online newspaper he wrote for his ditched him after they retracted and apologized for an article he wrote slandering Anthony Weaver. Do you think that, on top of all his activism over the years, he is notable enough for a BLP? Not as a crank, but as a climate change denier. I can't imagine Michael Mann would bother to sue someone insignificant. Yopienso (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Yopienso. I brought that closure to Deletion review, where it was endorsed. If you want to recreate it, you have to show that sources and consensus have changed. NW (Talk) 13:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think a BLP supported primarily by negative information would fly. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Error above: should read, "Not as an academic, but as a climate. . ."
- Thanks to both for your responses. Yes, Deletion review, it was.
- Hmmm. We have lots of BLPs on people who have been taken to court; they are built almost entirely on negative information. Of course, Ball is not doing physical or economic harm to anyone, and his attempts to damage reputations have utterly backfired.
- As nearly as I can tell, the reason there's no BLP on Ball is because of a belief that having one would enhance his status, and the consensus is to avoid that. Imo, this verges on censorship, but I respect the will of the majority. Yopienso (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think a BLP supported primarily by negative information would fly. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)