This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) at 18:34, 5 May 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:34, 5 May 2011 by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)|
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerk: NuclearWarfare (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Coren (Talk) & Roger Davies (Talk) |
What this page is not for
Folks, there seem to be a lot of tempers flaring and assumptions being made on the Workshop page. On the other hand, there are not a lot of new proposals being made. The commentary that has been made on currently written proposals is sufficient for those of us preparing the proposed decision to work with. Please restrain yourself from continuing to discuss the same points. Risker (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Mathsci participation in Workshop
Ok, it's time to put an end to this. Can an arbiter or clerk advise me on how I can formally request an interaction ban with Mathsci? He's obviously showed up here (and at other discussions I've had over the past months) simply to attack me in any way he can, most likely as a result of a grudge he's carrying over the R&I mediation. It can be mutual if that makes things easier - I've been making a point of avoiding him as much as possible anyway, so such a ban would have little impact on my editing and it would serve to get him off my back. I'm tired of having him dog me across the project. I can provide more evidence for this behavior from other pages if you like. Please feel free to respond to this in my talk and remove this request when you do. thanks. --Ludwigs2 23:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- I too have been disturbed by MathSci's use of this Arbcom forum to pursue his vendetta against Ludwigs2, who he thinks bears a grudge against him. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC).
- Unless you can demonstrate that Mathsci is somehow within the scope of this case, an interaction ban isn't likely to be something ArbCom will consider. If his involvement here is undesirable, you can request that he stops participating at /Workshop#Motions and requests by the parties. If you want an interaction ban that extends beyond this case, WP:AN* is the place to request it. John Vandenberg 03:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for moving Ludwigs2's comments to his own section in my second proposed finding and for moving this unrelated discussion here. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- In connection with his comments above Ludwigs2 left this message on the clerk's page: "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." Mathsci (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for moving Ludwigs2's comments to his own section in my second proposed finding and for moving this unrelated discussion here. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
IDHT artist
I don't know where to put this because I've only seen QuackGuru in action once, but his insistence on modifying WP:V to include some idiosyncratic statements of questionable generality (mandating "current status of research" which at best belongs to NPOV or MERDS) did fall into IDHT artistry as far as I'm concerned. Nobody agreed with QuackGuru there, but he kept going. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)