| Revision as of 07:30, 30 December 2011 edit94.196.105.204 (talk) →User:Mathsci/ArbCom2011: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:38, 30 December 2011 edit undoMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 edits Undid revision 468535080 by 94.196.105.204 (talk) rv edit by banned user - see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo moleNext edit → | ||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For several sound decisions in clerking on a contentious arbitration page. ] (]) 06:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC) | |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For several sound decisions in clerking on a contentious arbitration page. ] (]) 06:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| == User:Mathsci/ArbCom2011 == | |||
| While you're asking him, perhaps you might like to ask what use Mathsci proposes to make of his other sub-pages ] and ]. ] (]) 07:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:38, 30 December 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. |
AE appeal
Why are you inclined to decline my appeal exactly?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- As you may have observed, AE procedures require that any sanction reversal occur only "following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard". That consensus is not currently there. If it does not appear within a reasonable amount of time, there is no reason to keep the discussion open. NW (Talk) 06:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I do not think two days is a reasonable time frame. However, I should note that all the actions concerning me have yet to get any significant outside input at all. You could always get the ball rolling on getting some of that outside input by providing your perspective on the appeal.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- If I didn't make it clear, I think that WGFinley's action was reasonable and do not see a need to overturn it. Would you like me to clarify myself at AE? NW (Talk) 18:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I think you really need to clarify yourself. Did you read my statement on the appeal?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- If I didn't make it clear, I think that WGFinley's action was reasonable and do not see a need to overturn it. Would you like me to clarify myself at AE? NW (Talk) 18:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I do not think two days is a reasonable time frame. However, I should note that all the actions concerning me have yet to get any significant outside input at all. You could always get the ball rolling on getting some of that outside input by providing your perspective on the appeal.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
It is a topic ban and it is going to expire at the end of the month.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- Somehow I must have misread it as indefinite. In that case, I especially don't see a reason to micromanage and overturn it. Find somewhere else to contribute to for two weeks. NW (Talk) 04:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is not about micromanaging. No wrongful sanction should be left in place without challenge as it only encourages further wrongful sanctions and harms the project as a whole.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Would you clarify what you considered a "mistake" regarding the topic ban?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- A mistaken topic ban is one that was applied in a situation where there is no evidence of misconduct or where the sanctioning admin did not look at an important piece of evidence. This was not one of those cases. WGFinley may have taken an additional action with his topic ban that I might not have, but that does not make it a mistake. NW (Talk) 22:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am going to ask again: did you read my statement? Do you want me to clarify a few points for you?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- I added a clearer explanation of the distortions in the AE report if you are interested.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, what additional action are you referring to there?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- The topic ban in addition to the block. NW (Talk) 00:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do you mean the edit-warring block? WG did not issue the previous edit-warring block. That was another admin who issued the previous block. A week after that block expired those same edits were cited again in addition to what even the filing editor admitted were far less significant edits after the block to push for new sanctions. WG initially accused me of not addressing the diffs provided, but I just specifically addressed the ones after the block expired because I had already spent a great deal of time and effort addressing the ones before the block.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- You're beginning to look obsessed with this, though NW is too polite to say so directly. You must have realised by now that this is going nowhere: just drop it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have one very simple and basic expectation: when admins suggest an action I expect some sort of reasonable and accurate explanation for why they are suggesting it. To label me obsessed just for asking for clarification on such points is inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- You're beginning to look obsessed with this, though NW is too polite to say so directly. You must have realised by now that this is going nowhere: just drop it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do you mean the edit-warring block? WG did not issue the previous edit-warring block. That was another admin who issued the previous block. A week after that block expired those same edits were cited again in addition to what even the filing editor admitted were far less significant edits after the block to push for new sanctions. WG initially accused me of not addressing the diffs provided, but I just specifically addressed the ones after the block expired because I had already spent a great deal of time and effort addressing the ones before the block.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- The topic ban in addition to the block. NW (Talk) 00:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am going to ask again: did you read my statement? Do you want me to clarify a few points for you?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Responding to concerns about the need for further evidence and explanation there are now two sections under the headings "Clarification on distortions" and "On efforts at consensus" at my appeal detailing extensively my objection to the topic ban. It does contain a considerable amount of information, but all of it is relevant to the questions raised about my editing behavior and the reasons given for the topic ban. I do not think the situation can be really understood with a single paragraph or two of comments with half a dozen diffs provided without any context in a complicated case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- NW, could you please leave some additional comments about the more detailed information I provided? I have asked the other admin who weighed in, but he does not appear to have gotten on in the past five days.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really care to. I'm not going to close the request though; that can be the job of someone else. NW (Talk) 03:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Demi
Thanks for following up. I did actually contact Dweller many days ago to say I'd like to take him up on mediation, but I seem to be the only one willing to sit down and work things out. Is an RfC the next step in the protocol? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Likely yes. For it to have the most chance of working well, setting up a fair structure is important. Dweller should be able to help you with that. NW (Talk) 01:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Q re AE
Hi there NW - I was just wondering, does an AE case have to be formally rejected, or does it just archive if no one responds? I filed a case a little while back and I just wanted to make sure it wouldn't be archived due to a lack of response (from third parties, administrators, or from the party against whom the case is filed). Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- It should be formally rejected, not simply archived without a response. I saw your report, and I think it merits action; I'm not sure why no one has commented yet. I'm too involved in related topics to make a fair assessment on the case, but if you think it will help, I would be willing to add a few comments of my own. NW (Talk) 22:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- OK, good. I didn't mean to poke you to respond, as I figured you were, as you said, a bit involved; I've just interacted with you more than some of the other AE admins, I believe, so you were the one I decided to ask. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- WGFinley has gotten to it first apparently. I suspect you'll be back at AE within a month, but it is what it is... NW (Talk) 03:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I unfortunately suspect the same. Thanks, –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- WGFinley has gotten to it first apparently. I suspect you'll be back at AE within a month, but it is what it is... NW (Talk) 03:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- OK, good. I didn't mean to poke you to respond, as I figured you were, as you said, a bit involved; I've just interacted with you more than some of the other AE admins, I believe, so you were the one I decided to ask. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Please add this to your watchlist:
Thank you. The Transhumanist 02:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Drawn Some
Ran across this while looking at an old AFD. Though his userpage was marked by the wiki scarlet letter, this user had no block log. I reverted his userpage to the last version by you and protected it. I also read Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Drawn Some/Archive where it was suspected that there was a connection to Torkmann and his socks but from reading it, it appears to be inconclusive. Did I do the right thing here? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- From a quick lookover, it seems that you did. Have you asked Richard Arthur Norton why he added the tags? NW (Talk) 17:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Mathscis subpages
NW, back in the R&I arbitration, the committee placed restrictions on the use of subpages to present evidence, mostly because Mathsci had spun out dozens of attack pages against other participants in order to bypass limits on presenting evidence. Mathsci is back to creating attack subpages - . I don't remember exactly what the ruling was, but could you check the details and make sure he's reminded of it? thanks. --Ludwigs2 03:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| For several sound decisions in clerking on a contentious arbitration page. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |