User talk:Ludwigs2

Weston Price

Didn't know if you've been keeping tabs, but BruceGrubb has been making a number of the same edits that I has been reverted in the past, as well as started up (or restarted) noticeboard discussions here and here. I was hoping for some outside opinion as I am just repeating myself over and over and you have provided valuable input on the talk page in the past. Thanks for the consideration. Yobol (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Weston_Price.2C_NPOV.2C_and_MEDRS regarding an issue with which you are involved. Thank you.

Heh, I see you're all back at it with Ronz and Yobol. Well I predicted that the "retirement" was just to placate the Admin who was almost ready to impose a ban. I think I was marginalized because I made the case at the time, in terms maybe some thought too strong. Anyway, you and Bruce have fun. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 20:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Simply, some editors have extreme difficulty following WP:BATTLE and WP:AGF. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

@TFI: I'm just trying to improve the signal to noise ratio on that page. probably won't work.

@Ronz: I'd like to think your comment was a moment of honest self-reflection. was it? Eh, never mind, I don't really want to know. --Ludwigs2 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want me to mind, remove it. --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw on the talk page and on AN/I the possibility of a RFC/U. Did you still have intentions on that, and if so, is there anything I can do to help? Bruce is moving full speed ahead with his behavior on the talk page. Yobol (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Bullet points vs. not

Please stop reverting my use of bullet points. As I've explained elsewhere, to many other editors, it isn't inappropriate and a broad range of administrators use this form of talk page posting. For example, a casual perusal of WP:AN/I rapidly comes up with five different administrators using bullet style for identation 1 2 3 4 5. Two of these are checkusers and oversighters, and one of those is a bureaucrat. Using bullet points for indentation is well accepted. If you want to edit your own posts, fine. But please stop editing mine. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And if I were having a discussion with them I would edit their posts as well. Throwing in needless bullet points makes it difficult to follow the thread of conversation, and confuses people where actual bullets are needed to structure things. This isn't about you and what you want; this is about reasonable discussion practices. --Ludwigs2 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• If you remove my bullet points, I'll reinstate them, pure and simple. There's no policy against them, and best practices from multiple administrators and bureaucrats allows them. You might not like them, but that's not a reason to remove them. I could just as well force your indentations to include bullet points. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I will also note that you have not done as you said at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Weston_Price.2C_NPOV.2C_and_MEDRS, where you responded to four different editors that used bullet points right before you, including two administrators. You also did not avail yourself of the opportunity to remove the bullet points from this diff by User:Pmanderson. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

ugh, you're both being dorks, and I'm not going to argue with you about this absolutely trivial issue anymore. You do what you want, I'll do what I want, and if bullet points continually appear and disappear from the discussion no one will really care (no one except for you and me, that is, and frankly I don't really care, either - I'm just f%ckin' around). God save me from people who take this kind of crap seriously. --Ludwigs2 21:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-26/Ambarish Srivastava

As a mediator, do you know why the bot removed Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-26/Ambarish Srivastava from Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases? Cunard (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

at a guess because you added a link for the article name rather than just plain text. I've corrected that, and we'll see if it solves the problem. if so, that's a fairly major bug that I'll need to do something about. --Ludwigs2 23:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the formatting fix. A minor correction: I didn't create the mediation and am not involved in the dispute. Cunard (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

ok, that was the problem. I need to figure out what the poster did so that I can figure out how to keep people from doing that anymore. --Ludwigs2 23:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Haymaker

What's the purppose of throwing a haymaker if you are not going to counterpunch? "These punches pack power, but leave the person vulnerable to a counter punch during the wind up or if the haymaker misses". PPdd (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

exactly! but be careful: while I assume you are joking around, that's very close to sounding like a confession to BAITing, which is a nononono on project. --Ludwigs2 02:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I pointed this out already in edit summaries and on the talk page, but it's appropriate to also make note of it here. I won't template you, since I know you so object to it, but consider this a pointer to WP:EW (the warning for which is {{uw-3rr}}). You are currently engaged in an edit war on Pseudoscience, irrespective of how many reverts you've made in a given period of time. It would be good to refamiliarize yourself with the distinction between edit warring and the 3 revert rule. I say this because if the warring continues, I'll have to post an RfPP, which at the present pace may result in you receiving attention for taking part, including being temporarily blocked. This would mar your block log, so I'd not suggest continuing to war. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, why don't you just reword per the source and put it in another section you start on psudoscience in medicine. That is how things will likely turn out, and this way you get to use your pwn wording. I have seen you WP:write for the enemy, and you do a very good NPOV job at it. :) PPdd (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Jess: I'm using the talk page, the people who keep reverting me are not. that makes them guilty of edit-warring. beyond that, you go do what you feel a need to do (I'll adapt); I am perfectly cognizant of wikipedia rules, and I have no intention of giving up on this issue until it is resolved appropriately (which is not going to happen by reams of skeptics showing up to make reverts against sourcing policy). If you want to use reason, I'd prefer that, and that would be nice; otherwise, I have no problem lower myself to your level to play this out.

@ PPdd: because I'm pissed off at a bunch of <plural expletive deleted> at the moment, and I just don't want to. It's Jess' f%cking idea, so Jess can f%cking implement it.

when I calm down a bit I might be more amenable, but at the moment the RfC is leaning heavily towards delete and I'd prefer that to a new section just out of pure spite. --Ludwigs2 01:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to press this much, since I know you're taking some time to calm down before tackling the issue again, and I think that's probably a good idea since we need time to hear other input on the talk page anyway. However, I will note two things. For one, the discuss step of WP:BRD has nothing to do with WP:EW; One can edit war while posting to the talk page, which is what's occurring now. Secondly, and very generously sidestepping your unnecessary expletives, moving the content to a new section was not my idea. You posted about it first, and I suggested that it would be a good alternative to edit warring. I explained this on the talk page already (in my comment that spurred your ANI threat on my talk, in fact). Since, obviously, being pointy is not a good way to edit, I still think it's a viable option to try. I'll leave it at that until you come back at this tomorrow. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors were in the process of discussing the matter on the talk page. If you try to improve the text rather than continuing to wholesale delete all the text it may work better. QuackGuru (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent AN thread

Hello, this is to make you aware that in your recently started WP:AN thread, I have invited you to show cause why you should not be sanctioned for making threats against others. I will assume that you decline to respond to this concern if you do not do so within two hours of your next edit.  Sandstein  21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting - what exactly are you referring to? And you should know me better than that - I never decline a conversation of this sort, and always welcome any critiques of my actions. --Ludwigs2 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What's everyone so worked up for? Its just a sentence in an article, and in Wikipedia, no less. :) PPdd (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been temporarily blocked from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

You are blocked for 72 hours for threats of disruption. It is not acceptable to attempt to coerce administrators into taking action against an opponent in a dispute by threatening that otherwise "things will get ugly" and that you will "shout down and shut up" the other editor. This block is in application and enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  23:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made an appeal to arbcom, and am considering whether to start a desysop procedure against you for gross misuse of your powers. we'll see. --Ludwigs2 00:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a good candidate for the most absurd and abusive block that I have ever observed. Hans Adler 00:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be more constructive to reconsider the remarks you made. I do not think that they should have led to a block - I have seen far worse comments that administrators have chosen to ignore. However, it is better to phrase your comments in a more polite fashion. And complaining about the administrator is unlikely to be a successful strategy. TFD (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

After weeks of QuackGuru refusing to communicate in a meaningful way (as is his usual MO), and after weeks of QuackGuru and some others pushing semi-blatant nonsense into the pseudoscience article as if they were intentionally trying to discredit it, it is completely inappropriate to shoot the messenger for expressing his frustration. Hans Adler 00:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem considering the remarks I made, or even redacting if necessary. I just wasn't given the opportunity - sandstein warned me, and then when I asked for clarification he blocked me. what am I supposed to have done?

WIth respect to complaints about administrators - this is (IMO) a clear abuse of authority, and a misuse of the arbitration ruling. Sandstein was obviously riled up and obviously in a hurry to block me, for whatever reason. While it may come to nothing, I think I should at least put it on record that that he made this bad of an error in judgement, otherwise what's to stop him from blocking me again the next time he feels like it? I don't really like the idea of having the sword of sandstein hanging over my head, waiting for me to twitch some way he doesn't like. --Ludwigs2 00:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I am confused. Above you say you have appealed to Arbcom, but below you have added a normal unblock template. Are you sure that's wise? Hans Adler 01:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I am also confused, and have no idea what's wise in this situation. I thought it best to cover all bases and be accused of forum shopping rather than leave something undone and be told I didn't follow procedure. As I understand these things, Sandstein has absolute power here (barring arbcom intervention), but I don't really know if I understand things correctly.

It's a really stupid system. I'll have to pt this on my list of things to fix on wikipedia. --Ludwigs2 01:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have set up a request for unblock at ANI.[1] I do not think that an administrator is allowed unblock except through ANI or ArbCom. TFD (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The block is wholly unwarranted. In an ideal world Sandstein would be censured for such a disproportionate action, but we've reached a state where AE blocks carry the force of Holy Writ regardless of their intrinsic merits or lack thereof. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ludwigs2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I acknowledge that the comment I made was a bit heated, and I will certainly do my best to make calmer statements in the future. however, I do not believe this statement can actually be construed as a 'threat' or a 'coercion' - it was more like a plea to administrators to help me cope with an intransigent editor. Nor was I actually given a chance to explain before I was blocked - I was blocked immediately after I asked sandstein for clarification on what he was talking about (it wasn't at all clear to me what he was referring to at first). I do not believe that this block is justified or necessary, and I would like to have it lifted.

Accept reason:

Considering the user's statement that he will redact the comments that the blocking admin found to be a threat, adding that he didn't mean the comments to be a threat of disruption, the comments here by editors who support unblocking, and the fact that this block is a long stretch of the ArbCom pseduoscience restrictions, I'm going to unblock Ludwigs2. At this point, the block is punative, not preventive Dreadstar ☥ 02:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, please strike through these comments: "if you don't do something to get him to fly right you'll leave me with no choice except to shout him down and shut him up." and " if I have to go that route things will get progressively more ugly" as these comments can be construed as threats to cause disruption and attack another editor. Use the Dispute resolution process instead. Dreadstar ☥ 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)