User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

unclear standard

NW, I'm sorry, but you've made it seem (to me, anyway) as though I cannot mention Mathsci at all without fear of getting a block. I doubt that's your intention, but it's not clear to me what your intention is. And please don't merely respond "I shouldn't talk about R&I" because in fact R&I is the only reason that Mathsci is commenting on this case - that mess defines our relationship. I need some clearer statements about what I can and cannot do with respect to him, and I'd like it if you'd make some clearer statements about what he can and cannot do with respect to me, because I am tired of him talking trash about me. --Ludwigs2 16:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I have participated in many ArbCom cases and I cannot say what my motives were or are. It was very easy for me to stop editing in R&I: I have no vested interest in that subject and it has no relevance at all to this case, which involves issues of conduct and procedure. Having been advised by clerks and arbitrators not to mention me or R&I, you should be able to do so as a kind of academic exercise. I would forget about your "relationship" with clerks or arbitrators. We are all in the same boat: they are volunteers like us. Mathsci (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... Mathsci - I said nothing about my relationship with clerks of arbiters. I said my relationship with you is based entirely on R&I. I was barely aware of your existence prior to that mediation, and since that mediation the only interactions I've had with you were where you popped up in the middle of some discussion I was having to talk trash about me. As far as I'm concerned you are a (purportedly) good editor with some very bad habits when it comes to fringe topics. when I mention you at all it's over some troubling behavior you've engaged in historically, and not something I would generally talk about further (beyond that simple mention) except that you start whining and screaming in a major way at even the slightest implication that you ever might have done something less than perfect. I understand if you have trouble looking at your own behavior objectively (most people - including myself - do) but I am annoyed by the fact that I'm being held hostage to your hysterics. I am trying to get NW to clarify precisely what I can and cannot do so that I can refer to you in the case without getting in trouble when you throw a fit over it (as you all-but-inevitably will, no matter what I say, based on copious past experience with you). My advice to you is to let let NW answer the question and abide by what he says (as I intend to do, if it's not technically impossible). I'm not interested in your opinions on the matter because I find your opinions supercilious and self-serving, and I just want to get through this whole thing with as little cross-chatter between us as possible so that I can go back to studiously ignoring you, because you just plain straight-out annoy me. Is that all right with you? --Ludwigs2 23:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This case isn't about Mathsci. It isn't about R&I. It is hardly even about fringe editing. But if you are concerned that Mathsci's comments on you will look bad in front of the Arbitrators, then I advise you to simply leave a note saying nothing more than "Mathsci and I have had some run-ins at [1], [2], and [3] before". Frankly, beyond that, I see no reason why he need be mentioned at all. NW (Talk) 23:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Because he's adding evidence and proposals. You can't seriously be suggesting that I cannot respond to him at all, and I don't want to be in the position where I respond to one his proposals and you block me because he whines that it's a personal attack (which he will most likely do, at some point or other, because something like 60% of the comments Mathsci makes to me are unfounded accusations of personal attacks). Normally I would use my best judgment (which isn't perfect by a long shot, but is pretty good when I pay attention), but I no longer expect anything I say in this case to be taken in good faith, so I want a clear boundary from you about what I can and cannot say. Or at least an overt statement from you that ou will give me a reasonable benefit of the doubt on posts I make, so that I don't have to deal with silly wikilawyering about technical violations. --Ludwigs2 01:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Anybody is free to add evidence and proposals. I have for example, not very willingly, just presented evidence in the Noleander case. At this stage I am not sure whether I will be proposing any findings or remedies in the AE case. There seems to be a little too much control freakery happening at this stage. But even if I propose something at a later stage, it can and probably will be completely ignored by arbitrators. Mathsci (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your right to add evidence, just the limits of my ability to respond to your presentations. None of this thread is actually about you in any way, shape or form, except as a burr in my saddle. --Ludwigs2 02:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

???? Mathsci (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Ludwigs, a burr in your saddle? Are you feeling a little hoarse? . . dave souza, talk 15:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Nah, just tired of people trying to cow me. --Ludwigs2 18:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Moof! . . dave souza, talk 23:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I didn't say that you cannot respond to Mathsci. I said that discussion of Race and intelligence is off-limits. You are free to respond to his proposals. Just don't make those responses personal. NW (Talk) 20:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

ok, that's what I assumed, I just wanted it to be overt. thanks. --Ludwigs2 21:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Spill it

What happened? Since you seem to be in the know, I would assume you know what prompted this. Because a lack of explanation in this matter is absolutely unacceptable. Silverseren^C 22:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have my suspicions, but it would not be appropriate at all for me to say anything. Sorry, you're going to have to ask the Arbitrators themselves. NW (Talk) 23:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the entirety of this case has been plagued with the issues about Arbcom's lack of transparency, it is completely irresponsible of them to not offer explanations or even a simple reasoning for this matter. True, if it is something personal, they shouldn't say exactly what it is, but that doesn't mean that they can't say something about it. Furthermore, because of aforementioned issues that were raised, this only furthers suspicions that Arbcom is doing this to further its own agenda and is making up reasonings where there are none for their actions. At least, that's how I see it. After this, I don't see how anyone can actually trust Arbcom or the supposed neutrality of their decisions. Though, I suppose, most editors don't trust them anyways. Silverseren^C 00:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let me clarify though that my suspicions are really just that, suspicions. I know nothing more than you do. NW (Talk) 00:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I know, i'm just venting to you because I know that trying to argue with Arbcom is purposeless, since they are truly the "judge, jury, and executioner" of Wikipedia and above the law within it. Funny enough, I think Arbcom would be harder to combat than Jimbo, since the community already lost faith in Jimbo back in the pornography incident. But Arbcom has already had a rocky relationship with the community for a long time and, in a way, this shields it from any actual actions of the community against it. It's a funny little paradox. Silverseren^C 00:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, since the last mystery had a deeply anticlimactic revelation (I'm refering to the "cold, dead hands" remark, that caused such trouble), I wouldn't bother much with this one. I suppose there is a philosophical quandary here akin to framing a guilty man, in that it's arguably the best for everyone for the worst of reasons. But on a human level, I think the guy is better off not being exploited by Wikipedia. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There's the reason, if you wanted a follow-up explanation. Silverseren^C 23:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You have email, by the way. NW (Talk) 23:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet account Taciki Wym

This user was identified by Shell Kinney as a long term stalker of mine, who is under an interaction ban with me. He posted on the AE workshop page and was blocked indefinitely shortly afterwards along with another related account. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the case. Hans Adler seems to want to make this some form of major issue. ArbCom is fully aware of this wikistalking since it become confused with ip-sockpuppetry by another banned user (site banned by ArbCom and indefinitely banned by the community). I have clarified all these matters with an arbitrator. This year the wikistalking also involved outing me. Is there any point in allowing the discussion to continue? It has nothing to do with the case, as far as I am concerned, and Hans Adler seems oblivious to the outing issues. Mathsci (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The comment above is completely incomprehensible to me. Mathsci appears to be demanding that a discussion which he does not like stop because at some point a banned editor got involved. The imputation that by not following that demand I somehow supported that editor is baseless, scurrilous, and should have consequences for Mathsci.

As usual, Mathsci appears to be mixing things that he wants with things that he has discussed with functionaries. Innocently or not, this is unfair because it creates the appearance of backing from higher up that may not exist. I would not be surprised to learn that Arbcom would like the discussion in question to stop. However, I would be surprised to learn that Arbcom chooses to say so through Mathsci. Hans Adler 18:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems to have been preempted by other more heated discussion. As such, I collapsed the entire thread. NW (Talk) 20:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for collapsing the thread. I had already seen Risker's comment on the talk page. Business as normal now :) Mathsci (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop

Hi, the page is now used mainly for bickering among non-parties about issues that are, at best, peripherally related to the case. This degrades the usefulness of the workshop page. Do you think that the clerks could do something about this, such as tell the users to take their disagreements to their own talk pages? Thanks,  Sandstein  09:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Sandstein (see the section above). There seems to have been some misunderstanding about wording I used to describe proposals I would be making. I am quite happy for the discussion to be closed, archived, deleted or moved to whatever other page is considered appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is important evidence about the behaviour of Mathsci and needs to be preserved in some form. The Arbs have to make up their minds about whether Ludwigs2 is disruptive, and if so, how much of a problem that is. It would be deeply unfair to do so without taking into account the general standards in the project. Mathsci is giving a good example of what one can get away with for a long time if only one is perceived as being on the right side.

That said, large parts of the discussions there are off-topic with respect to their respective headings. It would be reasonable to archive them to the talk page or to the page history, provided that prominent pointers remain which actually encourage Arbs to read them. Hans Adler 17:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Look, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ludwigs2 is right this way, as is Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mathsci. Perhaps we should open them both and do some comparison bitching. I know I'm bad-tempered, but I'm usually bad-tempered for a reason (and usually very clear about what that reason is) and I don't rise to the level of disruptive except in the minds of people who are unwilling or incapable of dealing with me in good faith. And their opinion I don't much care about.

You my be right about some restructuring is needed, but I'm a little leery of it. the problem is that too many people have been indulging in spin-doctoring on the page, and so any restructuring has to be done in a way that doesn't privilege or legitimize one spin over another. best if all spins could all be removed, of course, but that would mean we'd have to remove all the comments of several current participants, and than I'd lose a lot of evidence about the entrenched anti-fringe bias. Unfortunately, for this topic area honest, thoughtful appraisals are as rare as bald spots in a Rogaine commercial (and objected to by many for much the same reason - not good product branding). whaddayagonnado. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, please go ahead and collapse/refactor/whatever the thread following the statement I made about my workshop proposals. I am now starting to post my proposed findings, the first of which already prefigured in this edit on 15 March.[1] Just to reassure Ludwigs2, as far as proposed remedies are concerned, at this stage I do not think that anything beyond a very gentle reminder to Ludwigs2 about issues of conduct is appropriate, considering the scope of the case and what the central issues appear to be (in particular they seem to be unrelated to his editing). Mathsci (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Regex

I've been learning this. It's pretty powerful.

Are you still using AWB? The Transhumanist 00:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is. But I have been too busy as of late, unfortunately. NW (Talk) 01:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Southwest Airlines Flight 812

Spotted your oppose. What makes it significant is that the hole's six feet long, and this is the second incident for that airline in two years. The other flight's article, Southwest Airlines Flight 2294, was nominated for deletion but snow kept. This incident is much more serious. I very much appreciate your continued input. N419BH 04:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ping

See WP:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Please rename these accounts please.
Cheers, Amalthea 16:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for helping by changing the focus of the Emilia Carr article. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Autoconformation RfC

A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Some advice please?

I recently started an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LST-766, where most of the arguments in favor of keeping the article are based on the conventions of WikiProject MILHIST. From watching AfD and DRV over the years, I got the impression that policies and guidelines trump the conventions of WikiProjects, but perhaps I'm wrong. I figured that I'd ask the opinion of someone more experienced than myself. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 18:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct in your thinking, but not in your application. WikiProject standards are the bare minimum for giving a presumption of notability; in other words, an article that meets WP:AIRCRASH or WP:NSHIPS is likely, per past history, to also meet WP:GNG. It is not a guarantee by any means, but it is something that is very applicable to MILHIST in particular I think. There are a lot of dead-tree sources about military history and only when those have been exhausted can one say that the article does not meet WP:GNG. WP:NSHIPS is written from past experience for the most part—if something meets the criteria there, there are probably sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG.

Other people might disagree with what I have just said, so you might want to ask around, but that has always been my understanding of the issue. NW (Talk) 18:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Could you clarify what you mean by "Dead tree source"? The idiom sounds familiar, but I'm unaware of what it means. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Anything published in print: specialized encyclopedias, books, journals, newspapers and so on. NW (Talk) 20:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Man, I'm a dolt. But on the subject of those sources, many of them would strike me as being similar to those that would be used to source articles on individual pokemon. Put more succinctly, it strikes me as the MILHIST version of fancruft. Do you think that there's something to that, or am I taking an idiosyncratic view of the issue? RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think there is generally a difference between professional naval historians who go into the most minute of events (of which, surprisingly, there are an enormous number) and 25 year old forumites. NW (Talk) 21:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It does seem extraordinary enthusiasm to have an article for every not-very-distinguished LST, doubtless there are enthusiast's books giving a listing to each, in the same way as the old Ian Allen trainspotter's lists cover every railway locomotive. On the other hand, it's nice to think that there's precedent for an article on every VIC. . . dave souza, talk 21:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

@NW: Thanks for the clarification. I hope I don't come off as being incredibly stupid. I think the way I became familiar with policy here was a bit unorthodox, I tended to watch events in places such as ANI, AfD, Arbcom etc. without actually participating, learning the policy by watching its application, rather than by actually reading them. I suppose I should expect a few bumps in the road when I actually try to apply them myself. I was actually somewhat flabbergasted initially by how notability plays out here. If you look in my talk page archive, you'll find a lengthy exchange between myself and DES on the issue. I think I've gained a better understanding of notability policy since then, but I do feel that in some cases, the result of following the policy to the letter is absurd, such as the inclusion of athletes that only participated in one game at the professional level. I recall a thread at the village pump recently where the point was made that, when comparing new articles on obscure athletes to articles on equally obscure musicians, the athletes were kept, whereas the musicians were not. I agree that GNG was correctly applied in these cases, but, at the same time, I do have opinions on subjective importance, and know that other people do also. A newcomer, who is unaware of how our notability guidelines are applied in practice, could easily be confused, and put off. I guess its a question of how you decide to gauge consistency. I realize I've wandered a bit from the original issue, but in any dispute there are almost always issues below the surface that are worth addressing, and I appreciate the opportunity to bounce my ideas off of somebody. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

While it may be true for battleships, I think you're definitely right with regards to athletes—there is no way in hell that every athlete who has ever played a single game will be the subject of multiple, independent reliable secondary sources. Consistency between different groups of articles has never been Wikipedia's strong suit, unfortunately. Just have to wait until my view becomes the consensus view, I guess. NW (Talk) 23:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks for the chat. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Link in WP:ARBR&I needs fixing, please

Hello NW. Please see the section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Mathsci topic-banned by mutual consent.

In the wikitext of that section the following line needs editing:

''Modified [[#Case amendments|by motion]] 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 [2] 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)

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)

[3] 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)

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)

Ludwigs2 on AE ArbCom

Hi NW. I am not going to respond to Ludwigs2's continued claims of "slander" on the talk page of the proposed decision, written after you made your request to disengage. Apparently Ludwigs2 now includes all my contributions on the evidence page and workshop page as part of the "slander". But diffs are diffs, that is the wiki way. As far as I am aware I have conducted myself properly in the AE case and the Noleander case. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

slander is slander, throwing in random defamatory material from over two years ago, or from completely unrelated issues, does not constitute valid evidence. --Ludwigs2 18:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

???Mathsci (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

After you made your request to disengage, Ludwigs2 ignored it here in replying directly to me after your request, which he must have read. [4] The edit summary is worse than the comment: "slander is slander - it doesn't matter if you put a pretty pink bow in its hair, it's still an ugly business." He than continued with thinly veiled personal attacks and uncivil language here. [5] He added another thinly veiled personal attack here [6], again repeating substantiated claims of slander. From my perspective, Ludwigs2 has ignored your warning. He appears to be more disruptive than he was on the workshop page. I have no idea why he is editing like this. Mathsci (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

redactions

NW - if you are not going to redact Mathsci's posts to that thread, please let me know explicitly so that I can ask the other clerk to do so (or if necessary, bring the issue up with the drafting arbiters). thanks. --Ludwigs2 18:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This request seems to be highly disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2: Enough with this "slander" nonsense. I don't care if Mathsci is saying that every single edit you have made to Wikipedia has been disruptive and destructive; you bringing it up over and over again is not helpful in the slightest. I'm sure that every arbitrator is aware right now that you don't like Mathsci and vice-versa, and will take what you two say about each other with an appropriate amount of salt.

@Mathsci: Would you be willing to withdraw from the threads without any recognition of fault? Your presence isn't really as "necessary" to the case as Ludwigs2's presence is, and it might help matters a bit. NW (Talk) 18:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi NuclearWarfare. I already removed all my comments on the PD talk page at the same time Risker wrote a response on her talk page. I think what you suggest is the best way forward for all concerned, including arbitrators and parties. Other users have spontaneously emailed me with similar suggestions. So yes, I am happy to do as you suggest. BTW, I don't dislike Ludwigs2 nor have I made any such statement. I do find his editing patterns on wikipedia perplexing and quite different from mine. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs2 has continued discussing the topic of slander here. [7] Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC) NW - noted. I will stay away from the comments about Mathsci, and try to use more delicate language for the things I need to discuss. and thank you for acknowledging that the problem is recognized and everyone is applying the appropriate amount of salt. honestly, it makes it much easier for me to disengage when I know people aren't taking him at face value: I don't feel like I have to dispute and counter every problematic thing he says. It's so hard to judge things like that from talk page conversations. And Mathsci... oh, never mind. --Ludwigs2 02:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC) As I understand it, Risker has asked for the thread on decorum to be collapsed by NuclearWarfare. One thing that arbitrators notice is how parties respond to them: you have so far not complied with Risker's request on the PD talk page. That is what the word "enough" means, and it has been used twice towards you. It means "stop", i.e. no more discussion on the topic, no more walls of text, no more rants. The PD talk page is for helping arbitrators arrive at the final decision. I voluntarily removed all my comments (apart from one word) without being asked. Mathsci (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Well, Mathsci, in case you hadn't noticed, the concept of "compliance" as an abstract rule is something I understand, but not something I give more than a passing thought to. I prefer to reach mutually useful and meaningful understandings through discussion - where that's possible, at any rate. I'm waiting for Risker to respond with what she thinks is a good compromise, and assuming it's reasonable (which is what I assume from her) I'll happily implement it. I might highlight this for you, incidentally, if I may do so without causing difficulties. I simply have no regard for authority qua authority: the status of people I discuss things with is of no importance to me, except in cases where they try to pull rank on me (and that mostly just annoys me and makes me more stubborn and obnoxious). If one wants to change my mind on something, calm, reasonable discussion is the best (and sometimes the only viable) approach to take. consider that as you will. --Ludwigs2 08:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Risker is a woman, like Shell Kinney, like Elen of the roads, like Iridescent, like Flonight, like Theresa knott. Mathsci (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC) That's also irrelevant (no offense to anyone), except for matter of pronouns. On the internet, everyone's the same medial gender, unless they choose to play up one side or the other. At any rate, I do hope you're not letting the s/he issue throw you off the import of what I just said, because that would make me sad. --Ludwigs2 09:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Nothing you have written makes any sense at all to me. Sorry about that,Mathsci (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC) No reason for you to be sorry: If you don't understand me, it's either because I'm not communicating clearly or we lack some common ground that would make things clearer. Let's try it this way: I think of everybody in the same way as a matter of preference and principle - it's an odd kind of radical egalitarianism, maybe? I'm not pushy about it (because I realize this is not the way most people view the world), but when I hear authority-driven statements (statements like "you have so far not complied with X's request..."), I automatically translate them into requests (e.g. "X has requested that I do something - is it a reasonable, useful thing to do?"), and work from there. My sense is that you are much more of a structuralist that I am - you like rules, and the hierarchical structures that come into play for the maintenance of rules - and that you are uncomfortable the kind of free-wheeling, lateral-thinking, discursive approach to problem solving that is normal for me. Honestly, we'd get along a lot better if you'd just tell me what you want and leave it at that; throwing the rule book at me isn't likely to have a useful result. --Ludwigs2 15:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Topic-banned

You really aren't getting it, are you. Consider yourself topic-banned from all articles related to Sarah Palin. NW (Talk) 20:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The above has nothing to do with any edit warring on my part. I only did one revert to that page in many months, and I wasn't the first to revert that time.

The two points of contention here that I'm aware of are: one editor claims the article should say that Ezekiel Emanuel IS plotting a death panel, which is contradicted by many sources deemed to be reliable by Wikipedia, and then there was the very incorrect claim that I didn't explain why Palin's death panel statements were well-documented, well-known (according to opinion polls) and very relevant to Palin. The latter was explained repeatedly and in detail. No evidence to the contrary was ever attempted. The following is one example:Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim's example
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This editor said that, contrary to TIME,[8] The New York Times,[9] the New York Daily News[10] and other sources, Palin's death panel remarks had nothing to do with Betsy McCaughey. This editor previously repeatedly accused others of violating Wikipedia rules that require editors to follow what sources deemed to be reliable by Wikipedia have to say. Palin herself cited[11] a Michelle Bachmann speech [12] about a Betsy McCaughey editorial[13] which, according to Palin, was given by "Michele Bachmann" in a "floor speech to the House of Representatives" as "a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors." Palin even had a link to a You Tube video of the Bachmann speech in which Bachmann said, "This morning I read a column written by Betsy McCaughey, and I would like to quote from it extensively now." The editor warrior in question made an incorrect correction based on the above incorrect assumption. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This editor also said, "These so-called death panels have no relationship to Advance Directives" as a reason for another deletion. Palin had her spokeswoman tell the media[14] that her death panel statement was about page 425 of a health care bill, which reads in part, "(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses." Page 425 is otherwise known as Advance Care Planning Consultation. A long list of fact-checkers accurately describe the legislation as allowing Medicare reimbursement for voluntary end-of-life counseling about advance directives. The above describes another incorrect correction by this edit warrior. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The following edit was deleted because the editor in question said Palin's death panel remarks had nothing, or at least not much, to do with her opinions about Ezekiel Emanuel. The edit read as follows: In explaining her prior "death panel" comments, Palin said, "My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel...." Palin reiterated this explanation in three separate posts to her facebook page and again through her spokeswoman. The editor never read the references, or severely misunderstood them. Palin's own words about this are as follows: From August 7, 2009 - Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors. From August 11, 2009 - My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11] President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. From September 8, 2009 The fact is that any group of government bureaucrats that makes decisions affecting life or death is essentially a “death panel.” The work of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama’s health policy advisor and the brother of his chief of staff, is particularly disturbing on this score. Dr. Emanuel has written extensively on the topic of rationed health care, describing a “Complete Lives System” for allotting medical care based on “a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”[12] He also has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens…. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”[13] Such ideas are shocking, but they could ultimately be used by government bureacrats to help determine the treatment of our loved ones. According to The Atlantic,[15] Palin reiterated this point through her spokeswoman. As The Atlantic said, "Reading the post, it's hard to see what Palin actually meant. Her political spokesperson later confirmed that Palin was referring to the principle of 'community standards,' which she linked to a New York Post piece about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel." It would appear that Palin made this point more than once, more than twice, and in words that indicate that she attached a great deal of importance to this point. I will mark this as yet another incorrect correction from an edit warrior. This editor previously said the article should reflect what Palin said, and then kept deleting what Palin said. He later said the edit was deleted because it is large. It's not large. It's tiny. Almost all of the details are through a wikilink to another article.

I don't think you're getting it. There is a phrase that I have heard mentioned many times before, though I don't think it's in the current version of the policy: "Don't edit war even when you think you're right." Instead, seek assistance through things like RFCs and third opinions. You rarely if ever had edited the talk page, an indication that you aren't willing to collaborate. So until you do, I am unwilling to lift the sanction. NW (Talk) 00:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

unblock

Hello NuclearWarfare! I've requested here.can you unblock the my bot? thank you--sahim (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Bwilkins (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has unblocked. NW (Talk) 14:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

thank you--sahim (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I did a thing!

It's been a while. Did I do it right? ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You screwed up as usual. I can't believe you're still allowed to login, let alone still use administrator tools. xD

Things going well for you? NW (Talk) 20:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

IP wierdness at Copyedeye user page, possible quacking?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
hi 81.164 keeps removing the sock tag from Copyedeye's (a banned sock) userpage saying they are not a sock, could this be Copyedeye quacking under an IP?--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 12:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC) For the love of god, Copyedeye was unbanned and the tag is therefore inaccurate. Stop being an idiot. -81. is there reson for calling me an idiot that made me cry! :.. ( --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 12:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC) Between the IP and the "idiot", guess which one got blocked. :) FYI to NW, not only is this a likely sock of Editor XXV (talk · contribs), but he may have given us a tie-in to another sock-farm. Although I wouldn't bet the family jewels on it, as there's always the chance it's an impostor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll follow up on ANI. NW (Talk) 13:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

:-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It was just too fun to pass up, with what it being two paragraphs away from "Please fix my grammar" :) NW (Talk) 17:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Windows 8

I believe it's time to unprotect the Windows 8 article, as there is now plenty to write about Windows 8. - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a whole lot. Do you think you would be able to expand the article to more that what is in History of MS Windows? NW (Talk) 04:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not wanting to go into too much detail on the history article, and there is a lot of new info still not covered there. - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

 Unprotected. NW (Talk) 05:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

Given your reverts of what appears to be linkspam on several North Carolina county articles, you may be interested in this at WP:EL/N. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind - the account has been spam blocked by another admin. Thanks anyway, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Tin Pei Ling

Hi NW. I know that you don't have to give a reason for contesting the prod, even beyond the edit summary you gave...but can you help enlighten me as to why Tin Pei Ling doesn't fall under the NN candidate criteria that have been applied to other candidates for Parliament (such as in the UK elections last year). Is she a seated MP currently? If you wish to reply, feel free to reply here or on her talk page. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

She isn't to the best of my knowledge, and I would agree with you that she doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN atm. However, the prod would have expired on May 4 and the elections are scheduled for May 7. Had this been discovered a few months ago, I would have agreed with the prod, but I think with such a short time remaining., I think we can afford to wait the ten days to see if she will be elected or not. NW (Talk) 17:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Syrthiss (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Lolo Soetoro Ann Dunham Maya Soetoro-Ng Barack Obama.jpg

With all due respect, if you think "Used under fair use to depict Lolo Soetoro and Ann Dunham. No free use images are known to exist. Photo is not replaceable, since Lolo Soetoro died in 1987 and Ann Dunham died in 1995." is a satisfactory rationale, you're not really familiar enough with our NFCC to be working with non-free content. That "rationale" explains nothing of what the image is adding to the article, or why it is needed. The article already has multiple images of the subject; admittedly, none of them are with her husband, but, bluntly, I fail to see why the facial features of her husband are important enough to warrant the use of a non-free image. Yes, it's her husband- I think we can all guess that they sometimes posed together. Why is a non-free image needed? J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You can FFD it then, because I would be surprised if consensus agreed with your statement here. NW (Talk) 20:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to avoid FfD where possible as it gets very little traffic, but I've gone ahead and nominated it here. You're welcome to pitch in with any thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you help reinstate an image that was deleted?

I'm setting up a new Wikipedia page about Larry Wilde. The draft version is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:76.209.134.177/Larry_Wilde Around April 3 I uploaded a photo with file name Larry Wilde.jpg. Unfortunately I was busy with other projects and didn't check "My talk" until April 23, when I found that the image was replaced by the text "File:Larry wilde.jpg" (in red) and when I clicked on that text I reached a page with this message: “Warning: A file by that name has been deleted or moved. The deletion and move log for this page are provided here for convenience: 13:58, 11 April 2011 NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Larry wilde.jpg" ‎ (Deleted because "Speedy deleted: F4 or F11".(TW))”

I understand that this indicates that I didn't properly identify the license status of the image, which is Public Domain. I've checked with Larry Wilde, and he confirmed that he owned the copyright and has released it to public domain.

The page explaining how to contest a speedy deletion says, “The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead click on the button that looks like this: ‘Click here to contest this speedy deletion.’ which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag. This button links to the discussion page with a pre-formatted area for the creator to explain why the page should not be deleted.”

However, I couldn't locate a “Click here to contest this speedy deletion” button on my draft page. (This might be because too much time has elapsed.) Can you please let me know what I need to do the reinstate the photo?

Thanks for your help, Suite Afton (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC) 07:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Might you have Larry Wilde follow the procedures of this page? He should email a confirmation that acknowledges that the image is in the public domain to permissions-enwikimedia.org. Thanks! NW (Talk) 13:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sub socks?

Hi. :) Whilst tagging the many socks of User:Tobias Conradi, I discovered that one had a mini sock thing going of his own: User:TruckCard has his SPI archives at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TruckCard/Archive. Should they be merged or something? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

 Merged NW (Talk) 13:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure still of the protocols in your department. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles

As far as I'm aware, I do not need to file a BAG request for articles created manually, only automated. You do realize I don't use any script right? If you are going to claim subst:PAGENAME is automated then I'll happily create them without it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The bot policy applies no matter how you are creating articles, especially if you're doing so at the rate of 1 article/min for several hours. NW (Talk) 13:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation of User Brettxiv

Hi, NW. I'm curious about what led you to grant "confirmed user" status to Brettxiv (talk · contribs) as shown here? I cannot find any on-wiki request for this status change. Since the user has subsequently used their status to edit war for the insertion of controversial material on a semi-protected page, you might wish to reconsider. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll email you. NW (Talk) 13:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Original research"

Hey, I dont mean to ask this to snipe back, but just to improve how I work on here; was just wondering what 'original research' you were referring to? I made one edit to the page which was a sourced press release, anything else was on the discussion page. Mwheatley1990 (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Err, I think I must have templated the wrong person. My apologies! NW (Talk) 13:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk assistance requested

Hi. I'm contacting in your capacity as a clerk in the ongoing "Arbitration enforcement" case. Earlier today I issued this warning to Hans Adler (talk · contribs). Risker (talk · contribs) instructed me, however, that I ought not to have done so and referred me to the clerks. I therefore ask you to issue the warning, as an uninvolved administrator, in my stead, or to take other appropriate action. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In case you consider following Sandstein's request, I recommend that you read the warning first, as you will be responsible for any inaccuracies and tendentiousness it may contain. Hans Adler 07:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

NW, thanks for contacting Hans Adler. I note, though, that he has redacted only one personal attack, [16], and left his other personal attacks ("a disruptive WP:IDHT artist", "the full extent of his own incompetence") in place. In view of WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions, which say that "Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct [...]) in their editing", may I again recommend that you formally warn Hans Adler about these sanctions and/or take other appropriate action against the disruption of the arbitration process by personal attacks against others?  Sandstein  21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, I don't know where you are getting the idea that you can censor accurate assessments of an editor's behaviour which are relevant to an arbitration case. The idea that these are somehow forbidden by an earlier pseudoscience-related arbitration case is ridiculous. I believe I don't even have to argue with the most elementary principles of natural justice, as there is not even a remotely plausible formal argument for your odd position. Hans Adler 23:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely comfortable doing that. Might I suggest that you email the clerks-l mailing list with your position to get a second opinion on the matter? NW (Talk) 22:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please do this? I don't know the e-mail address and I prefer not to use e-mail for Wikipedia purposes, for reasons of privacy and transparency. Or, if you prefer, I could raise the matter at WP:AE, although Risker was of the opinion that this is is a clerk matter rather than an AE matter.  Sandstein  14:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

AE case again

Hans Adler has left what seem to be personal attacks on QuackGuru on the workshop page here and Ludwigs2 has left what seems to be a personal attack on Sandstein on the talk page of the proposed decision here. Please could these contributions be archived or redacted? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs2 has redacted his posting (thanks for doing that), so that part of the request is now moot. Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci - weren't you asked (repeatedly) to step out of involvement in this case? --Ludwigs2 06:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, please do not post in this section. I can determine for myself whether I would like Mathsci to post on my talk page about the case.

Mathsci, Sandstein has already asked me to look into that edit (see the section above), so I shall be doing so shortly. NW (Talk) 18:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 has now written [17]: "The rest of this is all Sandstein, climbing up the walls like a rabid beast, trying to get at me." Could Ludwigs2 please be warned about making comments like this? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Moot now :) Mathsci (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Final strike

You mean blocking on the 13th revert after the editor agreed to stay away from the article was a Bad Thing?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Kind of. I probably wouldn't have had that much issue with the block if you had made it after the 12th revert (I can't exactly rememver, so I'll take your word for it that enough of the other 12 edits were edit warring as opposed to consensus enforcement). But you chose to speak with him instead, which is fair enough. That 13th revert was pretty clearly a net benefit to the encyclopedia though. Consensus and Ignore All Rules trump the blocking/edit warring policy, IMO.

And if I recall correctly, weren't you unblocked for that self-requested 3RR block last year? NW (Talk) 15:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I didn't request it, someone came along and unblocked on the grounds that it clearly wasn't preventing anything at that point. I'm not questioning the unblock at this point, but rather the idea that consensus enforcement is an exception to the 3RR. After I saw that U-Mos had been repeatedly reverting, but had not yet received a 3RR warning, I chose to warn him instead of immediately blocking. He said at 21:10 UTC that "I am well aware I am at 3RR on that artcle and am as you suggested taking a break from it as a result." Mission accomplished, no block needed, right? Well, at 23:22 UTC, he reverted again, with the edit summary "clear violation (and therefore I am not violating 3rr) of talk page consensus". Since being right has never been an exception to the 3RR rules, I blocked. None of his labeled undos to that point indicated vandalism reversion -- instead, they referred to OR, not reading the talk page, etc. Also, I just checked the talk page, and that consensus appears to have been arrived at by a discussion of 4 editors, one of whom was U-Mos. Definitely not a strong enough consensus to override 3RR, IMO.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Well. In that case, I think I was in the wrong with my statements. NW (Talk) 22:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

AE case

It looks good to close soon (I've withdrawn my 48-hour request) except that John hasn't voted on everything yet and may wish to do so. This may take some time because of his time zone. I'll leave him a note on his talk page.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Now it's for me to complain about a personal attack

May I ask you to do something about this. This is baseless defamation and relevant to my professional reputation. Thank you. Hans Adler 19:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for Response on Appeal

You, along with a few other moderators, removed links that I had added under External Links. These links were created without an account, via IP 76.6.2.0.

I have been asking for this to be reconsidered under the Noticeboard, and have cited numerous reasons, but the only moderator to reply has been Ruhrfisch. He suggested that I contact the other moderators involved.

Here is a direct link to the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#GoAlleghany.com

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Jason W. Carlton (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AESH

Do you agree that the above is a plausible shortcut for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

On a somewhat unrelated note, how was the vote for remedies 1 and 1.1 counted? And why are both 3 and 3.1 present in the final decision? T. Canens (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

@Ed: Yeah, should be fine.

@Tim: Probably in an incorrect fashion (Paul August will hopefully be able to check my work shortly). But the thinking I followed was this: Both are passing. Only SirFozzie, Kirill, PhilKnight, and Shell preferred 1 over 1.1. On the other hand, John Vandenberg, Risker, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, and Roger Davies preferred 1.1 over 1. Since 1.1 had more preferences, it passes over 1. With 3 and 3.1, you had an equal number of arbitrators have 3 and 3.1 as their first choice (Foz, Cas, Kirill for 3; Roger, Risker, John for 3.1), so both pass. NW (Talk) 21:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, David Fuchs and Coren didn't even support 1.1, so...; and aren't 3 and 3.1 supposed to be alternatives? T. Canens (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps. I'll wait for Paul. NW (Talk) 22:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this. For my thoughts on the matter see my earlier comments in the following section. Paul August ☎ 00:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

Sorry I wasn't able to reply to your question in a more timely fashion. I've taken a look at Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling and there are two issues I have concerning your close:

1. R1 vs R1.1: by the way I have always decided these things (and as far as I'm aware this has always been how these things have been decided) There are six arbs who prefer R1 (Coren, PhilKnight, David Fuchs, SirFozzie, Kirill Lokshin, Shell Kinney) and six who prefer R1.1 (Casliber, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Roger Davie, Cool Hand Luke, Risker). So in my view the situation is technically deadlocked and should be taken to the arbs for clarification.
2. R3 and R3.1 were presented as alternatives, with 3 being preferred (7 to 3) over 3.1. So 3.1 is superseded and should not pass.

Paul August ☎ 11:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I missed Coren for R1 vs. R1.1, so I see how that makes sense. But could you explain to me the 7 to 3 preference you counted for R3 vs. R3.1? I can't see which arbitrators fall into each category. NW (Talk) 17:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

R3 is preferred by PhilKnight, SirFozzie, Casliber, Jclemens, Coren, David Fuchs and Kirill Lokshin. R3.1 is preferred by Roger Davies, Risker and John Vandenberg. Not expressing a preference are Newyorkbrad and Shell Kinney. Paul August ☎ 00:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Correction, I seem to have missed Cool Hand Luke — who prefers 3.1 — so that makes R3 preferred 7 to 4. Paul August ☎ 01:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that David has expressed equal preference for both R1 and R1.1, I think it's 5 vs. 6 and R1.1 passes, right?

And that's it, I'm going to get the arbs to make sure they say "First Choice" or "Second Choice" every single time there are alternatives or die trying. :) NW (Talk) 05:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes with David's change R1.1 is now preferred over R1 6 to 5. Paul August ☎ 10:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Note I've corrected the count on R1.1 to reflect David's vote. Paul August ☎ 10:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Keith Critchlow

Hello. Why is the Keith Critchlow article being considered for deletion? It's not an orphan, and Dr. Critchlow is a significant person. What does the verbiage you wrote mean?

• "User wishes to opt-out per [1] ( https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=5619173 ). Sending to AFD for evaluation. NW (Talk) 17:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)"?

What does this have to do with "OTRS"? --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The deletion guide for administrators explicitly allows administrators to take into account whether the subject of the article wishes to have the article on Wikipedia. The subject (or a representative of him) has indicated through OTRS that they do not want to have an article on Wikipedia; the ticket is linked for others to access if they so wish. NW (Talk) 18:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. I can't see the original complaint and trust you've verified the identity of the complaintant. However, I see nothing in the article that isn't factual or publicly known. Perhaps the birth date? See User:Rich Farmbrough comments on the matter. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Make prompting for a missing edit summary the default

Looks like this has been archived, User_talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive_31#Make_prompting_for_a_missing_edit_summary_the_default. Wanna bring it back?  Chzz  ►  15:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Been kind of busy recently unfortunately. Next week or the week after perhaps? NW (Talk) 02:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure; no big rush. Meanwhile, I might enquire with Brion VIBBER (talk · contribs) regarding the tech side of potentially making the box more clear. I might not 'watch' this page frequently for weeks, so when you do respond, please give me a quick tb or something. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. NW (Talk) 17:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norbert M. Samuelson. Thanks. Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Why did you canvass me? NW (Talk) 02:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

International Brigades data

Thanks for closing this. I see though that the redirect redirects to itself.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for the catch. NW (Talk) 14:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Removal of comments you disagree with

care to point out what was removed and that it was /c id disagree with it. As expressly point out per WP:CONSENSUS is NOT based on vote tallying. Alternatively, what is the comment were to be left and the tallying on support hidden to avoid vote counting

Previously another adming HJ Mitchell i beleive, also added and reiterated that vconsensus is not built on vote counting. abnd as per a ITN item recently posted without discussion of consensus review per THREE other editors, it seems vote counting odes take place.Lihaas (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to make this more clear: It is not your place to remove or hide any comments. Administrators can assess the comments as they see fit. NW (Talk) 20:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

And what is this Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Pakistan_Bombing #2,3.

also its not to you to threaten with blocks regardless of what you disagree withLihaas (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Your closure of the request I made at AN/I

Regarding [18]. Minute, the word you used, is obviously your opinion. One of the largest impediments to enjoyable editing here on Wikipedia is the thoughtlessness and selfishness of comments such as that. I certainly cared a great deal about the concern I expressed, as did others although if I were the lone voice it still should matter. I used careful thought and as you noted 17 kilobytes of discussion were involved. You wrote, You seem to be unconcerned about this, and also appear to not have learned the respect for others I was promoting. There appears to be a school of thought here, the "just past Twitter" school of thought, that by saying things in three or less sentences they somehow gain more correctness, are "cooler", and wiser. That is categorically and emphatically incorrect. Also, I will decide whether it is worth it to discuss something with another editor, or with the wider community when it is plain that editor and his supporters are in the midst of self-congratulatory backslapping and not interested in listening. I will decide what is necessary to post on AN/I in the future, not you. I can't engage you in a conversation, and if I could I get the feeling it would benefit you more than me. There are as many editing styles as there are editors, so you can suggest how to find something to do to each one of them and the majority are going to tell you, as I am now, to essentially "keep it to yourself". Sswonk (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to "discuss" something with the community, the correct place for that is to split the discussion between User talk:HJ Mitchell (for the block rationale change) and WP:VPM/WP:AN (for the rest of it). ANI is for incidents that require the intervention of administrators, yes, but it is neither the first-port-of-call for everything nor is it a general discussion forum. NW (Talk) 04:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)