Jump to content

User talk:Ncmvocalist: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,183: Line 1,183:


== Arb report==
== Arb report==
I hope [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-09-06/Arbitration_report&diff=prev&oldid=383250968 this is a reasonable compromise,] giving enough necessary info but without language that may lead the reader to certain conclusions and avoid breaching the arbcom directives. (I'll follow your talk.) [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I hope [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-09-06/Arbitration_report&diff=prev&oldid=383250968 this is a reasonable compromise,] giving enough necessary info but 1) without language that may lead the reader to certain conclusions and 2) to avoid breaching the arbcom directives. (I'll follow your talk.) [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:21, 6 September 2010

Ola!

Hey.. how's it going? I just took off for a few months from wiki.. exploring other forms of creativity. :) I hope you've been keeping well. I just got back today.. started off with Rang De Basanti.. cleaned up.. and re-nominated it for A-class review. Let's see how that fares.. I've gotta a lot of catching up to do.

Are things okay? I somehow feel something is amiss after seeing this page. Ping me back whenever possible. Mspraveen (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see your reply. Yeah, I see the assessments are a mess. I'm sorting it out. Mspraveen (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Award of a Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded for extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially in regard to coordinating the Request for comment on user conduct process.

Awarded by PhilKnight (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class assessment at WP:India

Hi, thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment working group. I have always regarded WP:India as one of the most successful and active projects, and I was wondering if you thought that an A-Class review system might be appropriate for WP:India, similar to those used at WP:MILHIST and WP:FILM? It strikes me that there will be many Indian topics that require expert knowledge for judging completeness and quality of content. Do you think there would be support for such a move at WP:India? Or a more basic system? Feel free to reply here. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; will reply later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Just to note I haven't forgotten; still writing my view out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My answer to the first question is yes and no; it would be appropriate if there was a reasonable amount of activity (we'd all generally favour that, and support it) - but perhaps not otherwise. Having a couple of systems to choose from would certainly be useful; what did you have in mind when suggesting a more basic system? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been away, but people have been beginning to look at this. Please give us your thoughts over at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment/A-Class_criteria#What_counts_as_a_review.3F. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe

The derision on the thread was made more than 24 hours ago. The editors were notified. There's nothing to talk about anymore. Maybe it was inappropriate for me to archive it (and I archived only resolution part), but IMO much more inappropriate not to archive it. Okay you reverted me. Fine. Was there anything in particular that prevented yourself from archiving that part? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comments there and I would like to let you know that I will decide myself when, and if I will take a break. Are you saying that Dave issued insufficient message? Are you unsure in his administrative skills? BTW while we are at the subject of administrative skills I would like to let you know that this statement of yours "I think all of you involved in this squabble are likely to end up blocked, until/unless you find more productive ways to resolve your issues, no matter how right or how wrong one party is." (highlighted by me) here shows your inability to administrate. Administrators should distinguish between "right" and "wrong", and if one cannot, it might be a good idea to resign the rights.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an administrator; I am however well aware of what constitutes a sufficient notification that prevents wikilawyering, and when an editor engages in conduct that is likely to result in a sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah you are not. Then could you please drop me a message, when you apply to be one. See you there :)--Mbz1 (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be applying though. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I am not advising you to take a break, but I do advise you to butt out, if you do not mind :)--Mbz1 (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sensible advice you ought to be taking yourself. This isn't the first time you've inappropriately (and needelessly tried to) archive something that directly related to you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ncm was correct here, you shouldn't be closing threads you're involved in. Dayewalker (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Koavf

Please take note of this discussion. Radiopathy •talk• 02:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here (permalink) I believe that Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is hounding me and has involved your talk page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

User:GoRight

At this point, I feel that a greater community discussion is warranted concerning GoRight's editing behavior. I have started a discussion here.[1] As a possible interested party, your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Trusilver 01:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my comments

As I can see that they were due to a misunderstanding. Mea Culpa. I do apologize. Thank you for pointing it out to me Stellarkid (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Messages

Please don't post them to my userpage, as you did here.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I forgot to add the "_talk" when typing the URL. Sorry about that! Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Grundle2600 topic ban modification request

You might weigh in here.--Chaser (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have missed this one if you didn't let me know! I'll let the others who participated know. Thank you!! Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Hey there

The Nichalp issue on CarTick's page was well handled. =) I'd urge you to not reply to this. His arguments are now ad hominem. It would be wise to disengage. I would participate in the discussion too, but I'm on an extended wikibreak until I graduate. Cheers, Aditya Ex Machina 18:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note :) I agree, and I bidded him a bye for that reason. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have reverted CarTick's weird change of the collapsed thing, and explained why in my edit summary. Aditya Ex Machina 10:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the revert was necessary and that's probably not helped. Still, I suppose if even one other user needs the issue to be put more bluntly, I don't mind catering for their preference in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Mentorship

Please reconsider participating in the mentorship group. Your time constraints are a non-factor; and the group will doubtless profit from the fact that you are kept "in the loop" as things develop and change. Even limited participation can be crucial -- as evidenced by the extent to which I have been encouraged and strengthened by your welcome observations in the Tang Dynasty "clarification" thread.

Yesterday, I contacted each ArbCom member who commented -- Smith, Coren, Davies, Risker, Carcharoth, SirFozzie, Hersfold; and in addition, I reached out to two others who commented on another thread on the same page -- Newyorkbrad, Shell. This modest effort engendered three vague, unhelpful responses:

  1. Thanks for the note. We are close to deciding what to do here, so a little bit more patience and thanks for being so patient so far as this has indeed taken some time. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2010
  2. This is being discussed. I think I'm going to stand where I am on this, but we will see how others think. SirFozzie (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2010
  3. Just in case you hadn't noticed, I haven't actually commented on your request at all. Your comments were very confusing themselves and you seem to have set up a confusing mentorship system with a large number private and public mentors. In my opinion, this is not going to go well, but as I was not around for the original case, I am deferring to the judgement of Arbiters who were there for the case and can hopefully understand a bit better what you are proposing. Shell babelfish 00:17, 27 April 2010

I construe Shell's comment as a suggestion that I contact each ArbCom member who participated directly in Tang Dynasty. I will give this some thought.

In each "ping", I explicitly invite ArbCom to explain to the identified "mentors." For redundant clarity, my words were these: "please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me." Was it necessary to underline these words?

ArbCom's core error is two-fold: (a) failure to answer direct questions from me; and (b) failure to communicate with you. WP:Mentorship#Involuntary mentorship projects your role as some kind of ArbCom agents; but any evidence of constructive engagement is missing. This is an ArbCom-created stumbling block we need to acknowledge.

Perhaps you might be willing to help us figure out how to address this communication problem? --Tenmei (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Race and intelligence

Gosh, I didn't intend to give anyone license to do anything. My last comment in the matter asked both editors to cool it. This topic suffers from polarized editors. In a situation like that topic banning should only come as a result of a comprehensive review of all participants, the kind of review that can't happen in ANI, or in truly egregious cases, which this didn't appear to be. Since I commented, the dispute seems to have spiraled further and I'm afraid that the ArbCom will need to step in to resolve it. For everyone's sake, let's hope the parties can resolve this before that's necessary.   Will Beback  talk  15:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that! (Ironically, that's what I thought you meant too, but I started doubting myself after reading Mathsci's interpretation - thank you for the sanity check.) :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AH arb

I started to further address Alastair's previous claim that I tried to 'out' him, but undid my edits at the Evidence page. I'm confused about where Alastair alleges I attempted to 'out' him, but I'm having difficulty addressing the issue, because his username is part of the issue that the ArbCom should probably address. It is unclear how permissable it is to even state that Alastair edits under his real name, though he makes no secret of it, and such has been referenced in the ArbCom itself. Any reference to his username is a reference to his real name, which then gets left open to real or implied threats regarding defamation, and this feels a little intimidating. Alastair's username therefore feels a bit like 'the elephant in the room'. Advice?--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These words (or something similar) might convey what you mean, and you're welcome to use them if you like; it'd cover the part you removed, as well as the dot point which it was under. "Alastair chose the user name he edits with on Wikipedia. An arbitrator previously suggested that he change his user name [2], which would have avoided issues such as outing, but evidently, Alastair did not take this advice. Below, he has made serious accusations against me which are untrue, and he has not provided any evidence that is meaningful to substantiate or justify his claims." Does that help? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can this page be blanked/deleted? The rebuttal is incomplete and the author has been blocked. Apart from a very small amount of additional material, it is simply a copy of my statements at the Arb's Evidence page. Only one section has had an actual rebuttal added, to which I replied at the now blanked Evidence page. It therefore seems to have little purpose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blanked it (and a few other pages) as remedy 3 was specifically designed for this situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about User:Alastair Haines/Jehovah's Witnesses? And possibly User:Alastair_Haines/Testbench--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Courtesy notice..

Hi. This is a message to let you know that the proposed decision in the Alastair Haines 2 case has been posted. Please see this link for the proposed decision and to view the arbitrator's votes on this case. SirFozzie (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2

This arbitration case has been closed. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • User:Alastair Haines is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, and thereafter pending further direction of the Arbitration Committee under remedy 2.
  • Should Alastair Haines wish to return to editing Wikipedia after one year, he shall first communicate with the Arbitration Committee and provide a satisfactory assurance that he will refrain from making any further legal threats against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Should Alastair Haines, after being permitted to return, again make a legal threat or a statement that may reasonably be construed as a legal threat, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
  • To assist Alastair Haines in disengaging from Wikipedia, the case pages relating to this arbitration and all related pages have been courtesy blanked. As appropriate, other pages reflecting controversies to which Alastair Haines was a party may also be courtesy-blanked, particularly where the discussion is no longer relevant to ongoing editing issues. In addition, if Alastair Haines so requests, his username (and hence the username associated with his edits in page histories) may be changed to another appropriate username other than his real name. Editors who have been in conflict with Alastair Haines are strongly urged to make no further reference to him on-wiki following his departure.

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

WP:Requests_for_comment/Prestonmcconkie

As you have archived WP:Requests_for_comment/Prestonmcconkie, I assume there is a disposition on the matter? The RFC page has not been updated to reflect one. Please advise. Thanks Srobak (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute has been archived due to inactivity and I've just updated the archive page. I note that this dispute has been up for two months (the norm is 1 month). This basically means that the community have said all that they wanted to say; if parties find that issues are continuing, they can either escalate the matter to ANI or ArbCom for involuntary intervention. If you would like further clarification, please let me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

battleground

I get it just fine. Please do me the favor of either sticking to topics being discussed, or at least refraining from needless attacks. A.Prock (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus and I have already tried to clarify the rationale for you, but you are either clearly not getting it, or deliberately inflaming a separate dispute, otherwise you would not have continued to make frivolous accusations about attacks and the thread being hijacked. I think Maunus and I have communicated in clear English to directly address the matter you raised, but if you require further clarification, I can find another editor or administrator to try to better clarify the problem that brought the need for intervention (even if it was not explicitly mentioned under the correct terminology, battleground behavior). Regardless, please refrain from continuing to make frivolous accusations. Thanks! Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making frivolous accusations. (Is it frivolous to falsely accuse someone of making frivolous accusations?) I only asked for clarification for how Mathsci's comment constituted a personal attack or outing. If you want to improve the situation, by all means either look into the problem yourself, or find other admins who are willing to. A.Prock (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: About your WQA

Sure thing. Do you want me to do anything, or are you just going to mark it as withdrawn yourself? Either way is fine with me. Cheers. ← George talk 04:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, what's sure on the etiquette of that. Thanks for the tip! :) ← George talk 05:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

Stale ANI question

Hello. I was just looking at this ANI from a couple of weeks ago, which was archived a little quickly - nobody responded to the editor's flat assertion that he "[doesn't] regard [his edits] as disruptive", and your suggestion of a probation period tailed off without further action. What's a good direction to take this - should I relist it on the ANI front page, or take it up elsewhere? --McGeddon (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it had gone stale too; I decided to let it be for the time-being, until/unless the behavior continues. I'd mainly considered that he hasn't been contributing very frequently since then. Should it continue though, then opening a new ANI discussion and proposing the terms of probation I'd outlined in the previous ANI would be the way to go. Of course, provide a succinct background (and diffs of the most recent examples of the problem) if it comes to that. That should do the trick, but in the unlikely event that it doesn't (and you've exhausted that attempt), then filing a arb request would be the nuclear final option available. Hopefully, however, the problem will take care of itself now (without intervention...somehow). Positive thinking! :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. There was actually an earlier ANI on the same issue last November; this also ended with Pedant17 professing that he genuinely didn't understand why it was disruptive to edit a sentence into E-Prime after a clear consensus had rejected it as bad style, and getting silence in response.
Maybe it is time to take it to ARB, but (thinking positively!) it seems like closing a single ANI more clearly might be all it takes. I'm beginning to think that the basic problem here is that Pedant17 doesn't really understand or respect WP:CONSENSUS (in the latest ANI, he genuinely appears to be taking "quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority" to mean "I think my lone argument is of a higher quality than the six or seven editors who disagree with me, therefore I have consensus"), which obviously makes him a difficult editor to work alongside. Someone explaining it to him in a voice he respects might be enough. --McGeddon (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's something he'll need to ask others for input on if he wishes to reform his approach and avoid sanctions, in light of the number of attempts that were made to resolve this. If not, he won't have a choice but to respect sanctions or ship out. Note, when I said diffs of the most recent examples, even a number as low as 2 diffs should suffice in this case. Of course, if I'm around and I either see it happening (or you or Cirt let me know that it's happening again), I can certainly get the ball rolling to (hopefully) decrease the likelihood of a repeat ineffective ANI. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it might be worthwhile to try the admin-board route one more time, before something else. -- Cirt (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm just concerned that there's not much incentive for Pedant17 to change his behaviour, when both ANIs have tailed off with him saying that he doesn't see how he's being disruptive, and that he thinks WP:CONSENSUS allows him to ignore unanimous RFCs if he thinks his argument is of a sufficiently high "quality".
I appreciate that further warnings will probably be met with the same kind of unhelpful reframing he's presented so far, but it seems as if an unambiguous "stop ignoring consensus, and if you genuinely can't understand how you're doing it, please stop editing the article entirely" warning from an admin will help a lot in any future ANI (rather than starting again with Pedant17 still claiming to have no idea why editing against consensus is disruptive). --McGeddon (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the risk of probation is just as much incentive as being under it and potentially being page-banned by an admin - he definitely heard that part of the message loud and clear this time because it hasn't been suggested before. The question is how long it reverberates in his mind for - if he waits to the point that it isn't anymore...well we know what happens then. Of course, just hope for the best and not worry about him (in your mind, you should put the history of ineffectiveness and his behavior into an archive file and never look back) unless he pops up in your watchlist or something you're doing - that's the point you should alert me. You probably already know this, but as a reminder, avoid the temptation to supervise him outside of what you usually would do, because like too much chocolate cake, it can be unhealthy - esp when done by someone involved, and esp when done too regularly (and it won't taste as good either). ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist, Pedant17 (talk · contribs) has not stopped engaging in the exact same pattern of disruptive behavior, across multiple articles. Note the edit summaries which show the "edit restore" is actually revisiting old conflicts and pages, time and time again, to engage in what generally amounts to slow edit-warring, against consensus. Special:Contributions/Pedant17. At [3], talk page consensus does not support his changes, they are unhelpful and non-constructive, and yet he continues to revist and "restore" his versions, over a long period of time, months. Could use your help, in compiling another report, for ANI or perhaps AN. At this point in time, a block would probably be best. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the evidence is large and messy, an WP:RFC/U might be considered. It might include a list of all the articles where he's tried to impose the same style change two or more times. This might help avoid another ANI thread which times out before reaching a clear consensus. Though probation sounds reasonable, it is hard to know when such a probation has been violated. Can anyone think of a more specific constraint that could be logged as an editing restriction? Maybe one that prevents him from making a style change to an article a second time, if it was reverted the first time? He could still argue for it on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to that idea ... but would like to see if Ncmvocalist would be interested in compiling and writing up a report for ANI, I think he had previously suggested doing that. -- Cirt (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened an ANI on the issue. EdJohnston, you could add that proposal to the list? I didn't add it myself because though it's a good idea, it's also a bit more complex (despite being more narrow) - a broader restriction might be helpful, but I don't mind adding enforcement guidelines to assist admins in determining how to enforce them? Let me know what you think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Edit War - Rumble Strip article

Hi,

You just placed an "Edit War" warning on my Talk Page. I'm new to Wiki and I'm not proficient with revert functions. Yesterday, I think reverted somethings by mistake. The Rumble Strip article is my first Wiki endeavor. Please, go back 5 months ago (before my involvement) and compare it to the current version. The previous version was very underdeveloped.

Was this 3RR picked by you or did else someone initate a complaint?

It is not clear to me what 3 reverts you are referring to. If you would tell me I could explain/appeal. Thanks

Albertoarmstrong (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you violated the 3RR; this was a general warning about edit-warring (which includes a reminder about 3RR). You don't need to explain/appeal a warning - consider it a reminder, or if this is new to you, a pointer to check the linked rules. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Request

Hello, you may recall that you warned User:75.2.209.226 about uncivil behavior at Wikiquette alerts a couple weeks ago. Unfortunately for everyone, 75 has not stopped this behavior. I'm taking this to the next level by putting together an RfC, which has about 20 diffs of various policy/guideline violations. Please take a moment to look at my draft at User:Noraft/Sandbox/5. I need a second editor to certify that they attempted to resolve the issue with 75, and your statement at at Wikiquette alerts counts. If you could add something under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" I would very much appreciate it. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss this, or just no interest? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, didn't notice this. It would be better to get an editor who has directly encountered his behavior to try again at resolving the issue on his talk page, and then getting them to certify the dispute. Although I did elaborate the warning to the anon, I had also warned another editor mentioned at the WQA, but did so only as an uninvolved editor responding to the WQA. It's better for direct parties to escalate further unless it is serious enough to warrant immediate blocks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bummer. That means he's going to have to disrupt and insult more people before this gets looked at. I don't necessarily want him blocked...I just want him to stop. If you'd just be willing to say you warned him...you could also mention that you warned the other party, if you like. I've contacted a half dozen folks who've had trouble with him, and of the ones that wrote me back, one in particular said he'd be happy to support the action, but that he wasn't willing to try to resolve it on his talk page and then certify because he doesn't want to engage the editor again and then have to deal with the disruptive consequences. I can't blame him. But the fact that this user has people so unwilling to engage him is a real problem, because it is hampering efforts to get the behavior stopped. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...have any of the folksyou've contacted been admins? As in, has any admin tried to deal with the issue? They might be more persuasive than an RfC/U, though it could achieve the same thing seeing you've set out the evidence in an RfC/U format. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted one admin, who isn't (as yet) getting involved. I just can't seem to get anyone to certify, even people like you who have already warned him, much less people to talk to him now (and then certify). ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 07:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ash

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ash somehow dropped off my watchlist and I didn't noticed that you had closed it until I went to add a note to a related AFD. Can you please revert your closure? As is clear from the statement on his user page, Ash has not retired. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be ill-advised to reopen a stale RfC/U that no longer serves a useful purpose, particularly when Ash's account has not contributed since 13 April 2010, and when it appears likely that he will no longer participate unless this RfC/U is still pending. It ran for the customary 30 days and received all the input that it was going to. Should problems persist, you need to either take it to an admin noticeboard or move it up to the next step in dispute resolution (ArbCom). Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ill-advised or not, your reason for closure is plainly incorrect. There is no reason to take this to ARBCOM due to an invalid closure. Since you have refused to revert, I'll take it to AN. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bother to read the rules and guidelines before you opened the RfC/U? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. I don't understand how your question is relevant to the incorrect closure which you have now changed - can you elaborate? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I chose to clarify the other reasons for closure after your abrupt request - this included the petty distinction between "retired" as opposed to "stopped editing" (practically, it probably won't make a difference in this case due to the nature of his departure - users who are harassed to an extent that they feel they must leave often don't return). Some 15 minutes later, you then responded with utterly erroneous claims about invalid and incorrect closures, and you did so again in your next response. I asked the question to figure out whether this was due to unfamiliarity with written RfC/U rules - I think it is due to you making assumptions about practical norms (i.e. an assumption that all reasons for closure would be stated in the summary). That should be a sufficient elaboration. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you could not - and apparently can not - bring yourself to simply admit that you made a mistake and have now fixed it. All of your posturing is completely unnecessary - there's nothing to win here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've spoken to you in plain English, but apparently you don't understand what I am telling you. It seems silly to pretend that a mistake was made when it wasn't, in the same way it is to raise an absurd notion about winning when Wikipedia isn't a game. Putting it more bluntly, improving something doesn't mean it was a mistake to begin with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I was completely prepared to walk away from this conversation and leave this alone, if you are going to put words in my mouth I will respond. I didn't say "Wikipedia is a game". I was speaking of your actions in this discussion and your desire to be "right". I politely asked you revert your closure, since it was stated that Ash had retired, which I presume you believed. That Ash has not retired should be clear from the statement on his user page which is transcluded from User_talk:Ash/pause. Note the name of that page - "pause". Note also the aproximately 400 edits Ash has made since posting that statement, including to an unrelated AfD and a sockpuppet investigation in which they are not named. Leaving aside your opinion about whether the the distinction between "retired" and "not currently editing" is "petty", state that Ash has retired was simply incorrect - why expend so much energy here over such a small mistake? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I simply said it was silly "to raise an absurd notion about winning when Wikipedia isn't a game"; I am perfectly aware of the words you used and didn't use seeing it's on my talk page. You're not listening; I don't agree with you. I might end up being wrong one day in my belief, but I do believe that he has retired, even if it was not immediate, and even if it is contrary to what his stated intentions might be or what words he used (which you seem to be focused on). He has stopped editing which means the dispute about his conduct has also stopped which is what the original and present summary conveys. In other words, let it go until/unless he actually returns to editing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I get it now. You believe he is retired, and if you believe that -- contrary to his own words and actions which, for some odd reason, I seem to be focused on as indicative of his intentions -- then the RFC/U is moot. Sorry for wasting so much of your time. I can be a bit thick sometimes. Cheers! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't deliberately misstate my position - I said contrary to his words, not his eventual actions, so can you please stop putting words in my mouth because you have difficulty handling disagreement? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem agreeing to disagree about what Ash may or may not do in the future. The issue here is not that we disagree, it is that you feel your personal belief is more accurate than the user's own words or his actions. Your belief is that Ash has retired, isn't it? The fact that it is not borne out by his words or actions is not a misstatement of your belief on my part, although it is interesting that you claim that I have "deliberately" done so. Since you have edited the closure -- which is clearly not an admission that you were in error -- I'll stop wasting my time here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have failed to produce any evidence of actions/contributions after April 13 that conclusively proves that Ash has continued contributing, and therefore has not for all practical purposes, retired (which I clarified, seeing one person has inherent trouble in understanding what that means, and that the closure was not based on one factor - that he "stopped editing"). That you still repeatedly misstate my position (and obsessively beat a mangled carcass even after you were asked to let it go) seems to suggest that you actually have difficulty in handling disagreement, and/or are suffering the effects of being too involved in this dispute. I'm glad you're going to finally stop wasting my time - better late than never. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification

"Frankly, it is egregious enough to warrant a block, with or without warnings."[4] From the context I can't tell if you are referring to Ceoil or G8crash3r. Could you please clarify? Thanks, Lithoderm 19:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you looked at all of the context? Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that means you meant G8crash3r, then. Well, it really doesn't matter, as you've moved on to Ceoil in the meantime. Lithoderm 22:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You supposed correctly on the first; incorrectly on the second - though I did warn him in light of his commentary. He needs to improve the style of interaction if he wishes to avoid blocks later down the track and he might benefit from a nudge in the right direction from the editors he gets along with - but whether that happens is out of my hands. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Apparently he wants to go down the self-destruct path. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you're doing the best you can to steer him that way. If I were you I'd just leave him alone and go write some articles, already. The reason I asked was that I didn't want to slander you as a "shoot-from-the-hip wiki robocop" if you meant G8crash3r, but the description seems to apply anyway. Sorry to bother you.Lithoderm 23:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently people are not as thick as you presumed. I suppose an apology is beyond the gifts god gave you. Ceoil (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tough going isn't when people with nothing to say follow you to you talk page. Boring no? How are you anyway? Rain expected, hat needed. Ceoil (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to your verbitage. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

responding to this

They are talk pages and I wish to talk with those people hence I have posted on their talk page. I will be pursuing discussions with both of them as well. Your rationale being? B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 13:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posting to user talk pages is one thing; posting to an article talk page (that is meant to deal with article content only) is another. I am specifically asking you to stop doing the latter; whether or not it is appropriate to do the former is not something I am intervening in or making a comment on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those pages are User Talk pages? B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 13:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, both of those pages are article talk pages. The page you posted the above reply on is a user talk page which is why it says "User talk:" at the beginning. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

ArbCom case

I'm hoping this can get things moving in the right direction:

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Race and Intelligence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvcx (talk • contribs) 13:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved, although I might add some input there at one point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; didn't mean to drag you in against your will. Never done an arbitration request before, so I'm not really sure what I'm doing. Rvcx (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The involved parties section usually means that those users involved in the dispute will have evidence presented regarding their conduct in the actual dispute and your name and statement will appear on the main case page - but that sort of doesn't make sense in my case, given I'm not editing in the topic. Stopping an edit war, providing a direct quotation to a source without comment on a content dispute, and telling editors to fix their approach doesn't fall within the limits of involvement, unless for example, if the quotation/source did not exist. Hope that clarifies. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI someone re-added you: [5]. No comment as to whether you should be there or not, I have no familiarity with this case. –xenotalk 13:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers; made a few comments on his talk about it and now he has self reverted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Are all comments that contain the words "Nazi," "Al Qaeda" or "rape" inappropriate? No, of course not, and anyone really claiming that is being reactionary. However, there will always be a percentage of people who can be persuaded of anything if the suggestion is planted in their minds, but regarding this case, the real extremists are the wikipedians posting the private personal information of the BLP subjects they slander - faux outrage cannot hide that fact from the people who are actually paying attention. TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of your posting here might be that you feel the need to use inflammatory & inappropriate commentary because people aren't paying enough attention to an issue you are seeing. The sad part is that you don't realise how counterproductive your approach is. All I can say is good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new look for The Signpost arbitration report

Hi Ncmvocalist

You may be aware that there is a discussion about making improvements to the layout of The Signpost. I'm writing to you and User:Jéské Couriano initially to ask what you think about the idea of using the ArbCom logo at the top of the Arbitration Report page. Roger Davies, the Coordinating Arbitrator, was very positive about this; but of course, you guys are the writers, so please, can you let me know whether you wish me to proceed to the next stage and ask Ragesoss and others whether they approve? Here's what I had in mind, which removes the duplicated words "Arbitration Report", too.

Cheers, Tony (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony.
I'm uneasy about this idea. While the current coordinating arb may be OK with it, I think it's important to maintain that there is no relationship between ArbCom and what we write in Signpost. It might be better for ArbCom to use their official logo in their noticeboard announcements and the like, but I don't want readers to be misled into thinking this is simply another ArbCom noticeboard - it's not. There is also an element of being selective in deciding what makes it to Signpost and what stays on the ArbCom noticeboard, and which points/issues are highlighted and which are not (this can receive mixed responses). I'll provide an example (that's more readily obvious than too subtle) - Signpost presents what week a case is in, while ArbCom do not highlight this issue on their noticeboard - that said, ArbCom set target dates, but we don't necessarily refer to these target dates. Anyway, the short version of what I written is: I'm concerned that adding that logo regularly might imply that ArbCom are publishing this (or are involved in what is published). I'll leave a note on Jeske's talk and will reconsider after seeing what he thinks.
I appreciate the time and effort you've put into this in any case! :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's no problem. Thanks for your reply. It looked a little top-heavy, anyway, visually. Tony (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR Race and intelligence

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Thank you for pointing me to Wikipedia:Harassment#Perceived legal threats during my ANI over the use of "libel". It was the most constructive contribution. I have restored the pre-November 2009 version of WP:NLT for now, so that anyone else who gets templated for merely using the word, will understand what is happening. That explained the whole misunderstanding for me. Oh, and I won't be calling anyone a fool again. Anthony (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear! Still, I think most of this gratitude should be directed to User talk:Newyorkbrad as he pointed you there before I figured out when/why/how it was moved - I'll drop him a note to look here. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


RFC discussion of User:JClemens

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jclemens (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jclemens. SnottyWong talk 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedant17

The long-winded responses seems like more of the same, obfuscation, furtherance of protestation and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, etc. Further, is it appropriate for his "question" to be in that subsection where he posted it - or should that particular comment be moved into his response subsection ? Yours, -- Cirt (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, see also [6] -- Cirt (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His response should remain in his subsection because of the nature of his editing. As for JWSchmidt, he should practise what he's trying to preach, and of course, should this be taken to ArbCom, then his role in attempting to enable this conduct on Wikipedia (through wikilawyering) is another issue that warrants examination. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the question into the subsection for his comments, it appears he moved it back. I moved the question again to his comment section. Will not do that again, but - thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might've moved it back instead of him? He hadn't moved it back after you'd moved it the first time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did. See [7]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was looking at a different version of the page it seems! I think rope applies here in that case - when a subject tries to hijack a sanction thread, they end up with the standard remedy eventually; if the community can't do it, then there's only one last option. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It really is just disruption and ignoring comments of other members of the community, and ignoring dispute resolution process outcomes like RFCs, pure and simple. It should really be able to be handled by a block for disruption or imposition of sanctions from an admin. -- Cirt (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it appears the community is in favor of imposing the sanctions. -- Cirt (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree; finding an admin who will is another matter altogether. The system is in no way ideal in this regard. It does appear that the community is in favor of imposing probation; with any luck, it should be closed accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nod, agreed. With regard to Pedant17's tactic of replying ad infinitum to every single user that posts in the thread, I'm thinking it is best not to encourage that behavior pattern by replying to him. -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but there's a need for me to clarify the sanction where appropriate and necessary; if it gets to the point of disruptive, it'll be like Mythdon and ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cute. -- Cirt (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lawl. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

  • The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
  • Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
  • Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
    • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
    • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
    • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
    • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
  • All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
  • Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
  • The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
  • All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
  • Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
  • Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
  • Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned on ANI

This post be an anon user, possibly another sock of Naadapriya, is about you. Since you weren't notified, I am bringing it to your attention. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; it's another one. Would you mind if the ANI is removed? This would mean that all comments in that section are deleted rather than archived. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was resting. Sure, no worries in having that removed from the page per WP:DENY. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Koolboy2000

I suspect it's the same user as Awesomesun200. mechamind90 05:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; it seems to have stopped editing though. If it continues again, then we should open an SPI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: June 2010

About Environmental issues in India I've just reverted a massive deletion from ip user which has no reason, so I think you simply messaged the wrong person, isn't it? bye --Riccardo.fabris (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right; seems that I reverted the right person but messaged the wrong person - cheers! Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the team!

Glad to see you at the Signpost! I wanted to welcome you aboard and thank you for contributing. Good luck! —mono 21:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome! :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Disruptive editing by editor 75.2.209.226 and his socks

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.[8] The discussion is about the topic Seeking admin assistance for disruptive editor. [9]. Thank you. Eurytemora (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recall RFA

The Socratic Barnstar
Regarding this edit [[10]], it is WP:BOLD and nails the whole process of community consensus. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You on ANI

You have been mentioned on ANI here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section was blanked by NuclearWarfare here [11]. DuncanHill (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ncmvocalist, please consider undoing your revert of the close, or consenting to a reclose or some other drama-minimal closure. The closing bureaucrat had a valid policy-based reason for doing so.--Milowent (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They did not - see administrator policy. If anyone wants to escalate, they need not resist the temptation merely because I did. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to give you credit for having major cojones as an editor, but I see it as a very bad move in this case.--Milowent (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was in recognition of what policy says (admins can choose the process they want) and I was respecting Herostratus' criteria that requested admins don't participate. See also what I said here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Full marks for trying. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ncmvocalist. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. Elockid (Talk) 11:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For your email. It was very constructive. I will bear in mind your offer of future help. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this has to do with the editing restrictions on User:Mundilfari, as I suspect it does, I'll take this opportunity to add my thanks for making my contribution more useful and specific. Much obliged! Accounting4Taste:talk 15:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

WP:ADMIN

Unprotected, and comparison of wordings and details on relevant talk page. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed 5 bullets on wording, you've responded with 4, so it's not completely clear which is a response to which. can you add a 5th bullet or else indicate the one that you were fine with? Thanks :) FT2 (Talk | email) 14:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And again - thanks :) FT2 (Talk | email) 01:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoRight

[12] Proof please? mark nutley (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not complaining about your action but I too would be interested to know on what basis you've done that William M. Connolley (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent puppetry investigation provides more than enough evidence (note: mere technical evidence, be it on its own or in conjunction with the behavioral evidence, has little bearing in determining when ban evasion is occurring these days, and this case is no exception to this growing trend). Of course, mark, you are welcome to submit behavioral evidence to the contrary which would require me (and several others) to review this - I wouldn't mind doing so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be that, but there is no audit trail for your actions. Should you not add a comment there noting that you find the evidence convincing and have accordingly..."? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could (and probably would eventually), but it's not needed. Technically, the audit trail comes with the tag (even if I haven't made an unambiguous comment as to which bit of evidence or which investigation led me to put the tag on there at that time, the links are there). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undoing it. There is no proof. ATren (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretending there isn't any isn't going to make the proof disappear. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject India Newsletter Volume V, Issue no. 1 - (June 2010)

Project News

WP:IND Newsletter is back! It's been nearly a year since the last edition, but we hope to bring out issues on a more regular basis now. The India Wikiproject was set up to increasing coverage of India-related topics on Wikipedia, and over the past few months the focus has been on improving article quality. A number of the project's featured articles underwent featured article reviews over the past year. Of these, Darjeeling and Flag of India survived the review process, while the rest were demoted. During the same period, Gangtok, Harbhajan Singh, Darjeeling and Mysore were featured on the main page respectively on August 20, September 17, November 6 and December 29, 2009. Meanwhile, articles on topics as diverse as Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), Marwari horse and Iravan were promoted as featured articles, and respectively appeared on the main page on March 25, May 17 and May 28, 2010. Consequently, the number of FA-class articles under the project's scope dropped from 67 in August 2009 to 63 in June 2010. The number of good articles, however, saw a more than 40% increase, from 91 to 130 during the same period, while the number of featured lists saw a 33% increase from 12 to 16.

Due to the recent policy changes regarding unreferenced Biographies of Living People (BLPs), an effort was started in January 2010 to source all unreferenced BLPs coming under Wikiproject India. 1200 such articles were identified initially and more were added to the list later. Due to the sourcing effort, the number of Indian unreferenced BLPs is down to 565 currently. During February-April 2010, There was a large scale disruption of Kerala related articles by a Thrissur based IP vandal. Editing from a dynamic IP BSNL connection, the vandal changed dates of birth, death and ages of a number of Malayalam and Tamil film actors. Later he added a few international biographies to his list. He also marked some living people like Arvind Swamy as dead. A month long range block was imposed on his IP range two times and each time he came back to vandalise dates once the block expired. Currently the range has been blocked for three months till September 11, 2010.

What's New?
Current proposals and discussions
  • A discussion is underway here to reach a consensus regarding the use of Indian number names (lakh, crore etc.) in Wikipedia articles. Please participate and add your comments.
  • A discussion is in progress here in order to determine whether non-Western (including Indian) forms of classical music should be referred to by the nomenclature of art music instead of classical music. Please participate and add your comments.
  • Watchlist the Articles for Deletions page for India related discussions. Opinions from more Indian Wikipedians are required in many of the discussions.

If you've just joined, add your name to the Members section of WikiProject India. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!

Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 2 – (July 2010)). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Looking forward toward more contributions from you!
Complete To Do List
Complete To Do List
Signed...
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may mention it at WikiProject India Outreach Department

This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 18:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

email

I was wondering if you've received my email. Thanks.radek (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Put That Back, Please

I think this was perfectly written and said exactly what needed to be said to all involved. Nothing needed to be rewritten there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It came out more jumbled than I wanted it to; I've put it back now in a more structured manner. But if you want to use any part of the original bundle of thoughts, you're welcome to. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the more structured, though written the same, version and I like it just the same. It says exactly what needs to be said. I personally feel Malleus is also at fault like Rod. They were both acting like children with the name calling. But with the blocking and unblocking, it just wasn't good. I am personally staying out of it, but watching from a distance...outside of the blast radius. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears Rod has now retired as a result of the block/unblock; once upon a time, that would guarantee a blast - whether anything has changed is a matter for time to decide I guess, though the chances are not high when Rod was responsible for blocking in spite of involvement and incivility. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M/O interaction ban

The proposal was modified to indicate they should email (not post to talk pages) about infractions; is there a reason this wasn't reflected in the final settings? –xenotalk 12:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm; now that I look again, BMK took it out thinking it might be abused. I don't think having them report onwiki will lead to anything good, but I suppose that it's too late at this point to make changes. –xenotalk —Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. Ideally, neither party would violate the restriction making the point moot, but if it becomes a real problem, then the community will need to come to a consensus to modify the restriction accordingly. Alternatively, you could invite all participants to provide their input on which is preferrable, either in the same section or even in a new subsection - that could effect the modification now (before it is archived). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We also had a summary that I wrote on the RfC talk page. It was supported by several users with zero oppose votes. I saw the RfC was archived without including this summary. I was hoping you could add this to the main page. -OberRanks (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it wasn't included on the main page was because the RfC was closed due to escalation (the 2nd type of close) rather than the semantics of an agreement (the 3rd type of close) - escalation overtook via the ANI discussion and the binding outcomes that resulted. On a side note, this close-hierarchy eliminates any last minute concerns that are raised either by the subject (who is a participant) or any other user who is unhappy with either the summary, the fact that it was proposed by the certifer, etc. etc. In other words, this steers the dispute/parties to the community resolution rather than leaving open possible grounds for disputes about disputes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SP timing

Hi, are you standing in for HaeB this week? Do you know how long before publication? Another 18 hours would be nice, so I can sleep then copy-edit other pages. Tony (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HaeB will still be publishing...he wants it ready for tomorrow but I don't know what time exactly. The aim is to reduce the late record. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[13] (removing incomplete thought fragment added here). Feel free to re-insert this wherever it belonged. –xenotalk 18:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think I was trying to reword that part of an earlier response but once I began responding to F, I forgot I was in the middle of that effort. Still, judging by what he said (and did) later, it wouldn't have made any difference so I'm not going to retry; it can stay removed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

RFAR

It's clear that you disagree with Floquenbeam on this core issue - is there really a need to keep on pointing out that he hasn't conceded to your point of view? –xenotalk 14:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A mere difference in point of view would not have resulted in me filing a request for arbitration with the names of 3 administrators as the primary parties. Each comment I make confirms when I've read something and explicitly clarifies whether anything with respect to the request has even slightly changed (or not) in light of later comments, conduct, etc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. –xenotalk 15:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious...

...which separate matter? Feel free to tell me it's none of my business! TFOWR 17:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one; the issues are slightly different, but if it doesn't move ahead, the principle and rationales would be able to extend to other situations (including repeatedly reverting suspected/actual accounts of indef blocked users). :( Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it (obviously, I'm aware of the circumstances that preceded AR, but wasn't aware you'd raised it at AR).
On an unrelated note, I pinged BlackKite to ask if they'd be willing to refine their "pro/con British Isles" proposal. I realise I could just as easily have presented a modified proposal at ANI, but given that so many editors have !voted/commented, it seemed more appropriate to run it by BlackKite first. I'd welcome any feedback from you, too. TFOWR 17:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're too kind. :) BlackKite is the proposer so he is indeed the person to be speaking to about it; I'm only looking at procedural issues for this, and there'd be no issues on that front. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at AN/I – editor 75.2.209.226 and socks

There’s an ongoing discussion at AN/I [14] about editor IP 75.2.209.226 AKA Techwriter2B AKA ....

The Techwriter2B account is under indefinite block (resulting from the AN/I discussion in June), but he’s apparently continuing the same behavior under IP 64.252.0.159 and a new user account (Filmcracker). There’s discussion of a community ban. Thought you might be interested. Best Eurytemora (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of GoRight is up for speedy deletion. As the creator of this list I am informing you. Polargeo (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ncmvocalist -

regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:1Operaman I actually wrote this originally under the username 1Operaman. It was written a few years back, when I didn't know you had to be famous or renowned to get posted on wikipedia. i unfortunately didn't store an email address for the username. i can't recall the password for account. I would like to delete the photo and biography. Would appreciate anything you could do.

Thanks,

1musicman11 (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

He's/She's back

Please see the message I have posted here and review the links in it. We really need to take care of this issue once and for all. Centpacrr (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commented there. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Arb Backup

Fine by me. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of an article

Hi...just wanted to check..I've recently posted my first article on Wikipedia, Pritish Nandy Communications but it says that its level of importance is low. Is there anyway to change this for the better? Would be nice if we could talk on the article's talk page. Best wishes. Shishir58 (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's nothing that can be done to change it because this article falls in the category of articles that "cover a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia". That it is of low importance doesn't mean that it is bad; most articles are of low importance, including some cities in India. Capital cities in India can be high importance, while Indian states are of top importance. The place that an article can improve is in its quality scale. Hope that helps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Thanks a ton! Shishir58 (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just wanted to say, you are fantastic. One of the editors I respect the most. I'd give you a barnstar except that the default templates are all gaudy and you may already have enough of them :). Keep it up, sir. extransit (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, not sure what brought this on, but I appreciate it. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What brought it on is somewhere on the scale between 'I've watched you for many months and chose every word with care' and 'I smoked a lot of weed and wanted to make an edit, but couldn't think of any good ones to make so I did this'. Your welcome :) extransit (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch..

In the hurry to get everything posted before RL intervenes, I unchecked the box, Thinking I was restricting it.. instead I was unrestricting it.. oy vey.. too many buttons! (laughs). Thanks again SirFozzie (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, no problem - I had a feeling something was about to get missed so I piped up early on before it became a bigger issue later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

See the talk page - this wasn't on a whim. Usually the column's well written but on this occasion it mixed up points, omitted key points, and included wording that really jumped out ("tried to justify"?). Overall it wasn't the usual standard. It was a messy read. The rewrite was as faithful to the original report as possible while sorting these out and improving fidelity to the source, and explained on the talk page. Please compare the two and reconsider reinstating it. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the talk prior to reverting and I also read the version that you wrote; I don't agree. Until now, the feedback I received since publication appears to suggest that users have made sense of what is being said without your editing. I don't doubt there will always be room for improvement, and I welcome all feedback, but not to the extent where you can substantially change the text of a report that I hold responsibility over. If there may have been a major issue in the reporting of something, (for example, in another report, we (Signpost) once reported something inaccurately), we have and will leave a note to this effect - directing readers to those issues so that they can make sense of what is happening without altering our original text. Even to that extent, I don't agree that there is an issue here (and I certainly haven't received any correspondence from an active arbitrator regarding any concerns to this effect; they know how to reach me and I know how to reach them). I also don't think it was so messy or that you should have edited it given your stance no the issue, but I'll certainly take your feedback in relation to the standards that you expected. In any case, this appears to be a case where I should clarify something.
Please note that this is not a Committee noticeboard - this is Signpost; a publication that is not only independent of ArbCom's office (and its previous members), but one that was published half a week ago. Please also note that Signpost is not another vehicle for merely singing the exact tunes that are sung at the Committee noticeboard because that's what the Committee, or users who support the Committee's position (on a particular issue), want others to hear or ideally to agree with. Similarly, Signpost is not a vehicle that merely sings the same tunes that are sung by users who criticise the Committee on the noticeboard talk, because that's what users who oppose the Committee's position (on a particular issue) want others to hear or ideally to agree with. Signpost has never pretended that it is a replacement for anything, and holds no obligations in that regard - it will, through its journalists, certainly try to take care not to misstate or misrepresent a comment, a view or an issue (and any concerns should be forwarded to the relevant journalist), but it will not hold some unreal and stringent alliance to statements that were in themselves flawed (either due to omissions or copyediting in themselves). Users have the opportunity to look at links and diffs that are provided in the report to ascertain for themselves (to come to their own views) about what is happening, why it is happening, how it is happening, where it is happening and when it is happening (adjust "is happening" to "has happened" for things that have already occurred). What was written was within the discretion of the journalist (and others who looked at it the day after it was published agreed). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly agree but disagree that it describes the issue well. Signpost is a publication not an article, it is independently written as a news-sheet. It is also a communal writing as much as any other, not WP:OWNed by a specific writer, and editors observing actual confusion or misleading wording in it may well remedy those (as has happened in the past). Its aim is to report fairly, accurately, informatively, and without allegiance to any given group or viewpoint. That means other kinds of usual journalism norms apply. If (for example) Arbcom make a decision that is seen as flawed and unpopular it should be openly reported as such. If a media storm arises that is also fairly reported.
However the Arbcom announcement we're discussing was not accurately reported to a good standard. Signpost is independent but that does not mean it is free from responsibility to report as fairly and accurately as it can. The issue is clear to anyone reviewing the two drafts (would you like to find a source suggesting that "tried to justify" and all its negative connotations in any way was good accurate and balanced journalistic reporting of the case? Or that the system reverted to was that prior to the election system which might be noteworthy to readers unaware of history?) In this case the section's writing failed that standard, and that was what was addressed - without bias or favor. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you will note that norms are not staying in the stagnant past so that mistakes are repeated (including those that are not so visible on-wiki). A number of concerns have been raised about texts that were revised after the bulk number of readers have already read a particular version; although your feedback was noted and will be taken into account in the future, the plain fact is that this is not the way a publication works satisfactorily in practice even in its communal approach. I can't begin to count the number of times users who have strongly advocated a position on a subject (with or without the endorsement of other advocates) have tried to change (or push a change to) text in Signpost be it because they genuinely believe they are assisting/improving the content in relation to the subject, or be it because of something else which is more likely - sometimes they actually are improving something in some way, but this doesn't trump the concerns. In fact, some such users are still holding grudges that they couldn't bully Signpost to write what they wanted, and have continued to correspond with Signpost in a similar fashion.
The text that is standing in this report served the purpose of informing the reader, making the reader think about the issue, and coming to their own views, and this purpose was successfully achieved. Even with the omissions that were made in the announcement, users came to understand what was happening without your assistance, and contrary to your personal beliefs, they weren't misled or confused; based on other feedback I've received, it appears users were prompted to look at the discussion page due to the construction of the report, and it all connected well together (after which they stated their own view regarding the issue). And no, Signpost will not turn into a report that covers excruciatingly boring material in an excruciatingly boring way. Contrary to your own personal views about what constitutes accurate and good journalism, or what meets Signpost's standards, the fact is there can be a level of agreement with the Signpost text, a level of disagreement with the Signpost text, and/or a mixture of both (which is effective) because the readers came to their own views after reading the report, visiting the links and diffs provided in the report, and looking at something for themselves - that happened here, and that effect was intended. I nevertheless thank you for providing your feedback. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for extra eyeballs on this at Signpost's talk page. I would like to be clear and reassure, this is not a reflection on you in any way, nor does it speak to my ongoing trust and confidence (which I have stated explicitly in case anyone thought otherwise), nor is it "beating a dead horse". (And I've tried to de-personalize it as best I can too.) It's about my concern that implication and quality is an area that constantly needs vigilance and there were issues here that I didn't feel we resolved and maybe that means one - or both - of us could learn from it. Hopefully it will be as intended, simply an amicable sounding of other editors' views and conclusions. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are "beating a dead horse", nor have I said that at any point when you voiced your concern - could you please explain where this is coming from? Frankly, I think the talk gets too few eyes and this concern deserves to be heard properly, whether or not that is a good thing for me on Wikipedia. Chances are (if the boss agrees) that there will be something going out to readers to make a decision on what they want. If I'm so significantly out of touch with the concern being conveyed here, I think I am unsuited for this responsibility. If what I published was acceptable (though not necessarily the best as improvement can always occur), while the concern is disproportionately focused on with respect to the final product of July 19, then that seems to be in line with what I've said or was trying to say - despite how my responses appeared to you ("bad faith"). If no improvement is needed whatsoever, then again I will think I am unsuited for this position because there is always room for improvement and I don't believe that such feedback would be honest - it's just the nature of the concern, the degree of significance attached to the concern in the particular issue, and other areas that make the difference. I think I'll learn from it either way, and even with the lynch mob that may exist to cloud the issue, it would kill a few bits with the same stone for the benefit of Signpost. Thanks! Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The dead horse was my own concern and nothing you had said - ie that having discussed it here you might feel it didn't need further talk and was annoyingly unnecessary. It would probably be good in all ways, to get some collegial views and suggestions on it like you say (as opposed to drama oriented views and such). I would like to be clear that I found a couple of the comments unhelpful and a couple suggested dismissal due to some assumption of bad faith, but even so they were a small part of the whole. The post to me as a whole was clearly trying to help. It was probably all one of those "we all write substandard sometimes" things, I have had those myself and maybe this is one too. Not a huge deal, it happens, worth checking. Quite likely I suspect you had already taken note of the concerns anyway; what this might do is provide a 3rd party check for reassurance and input how others see it, and help keep the standard high in future. No lynch mob needed or called for though :) FT2 (Talk | email) 16:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think your summary of the issues was very fair or balanced to be honest, but as you might have already gathered, disclaiming words are rarely remotely sufficient to make me stop questioning what I do here, no matter how happy or annoyed or [insert emotion] someone becomes because of it, and beyond noting the original announcement there, I don't intend on making my own response - either you can adjust parts of your statement or it can just go as is, because I've been advised that in light of your posting, there's no need for me to ask any more questions on the issue. I think this should be my final response unless I think this is beginning to make sense for you or others, because as I said, I am starting to grow tired with the amount of time this is consuming, which should be evidenced from the mostly disorganised and probably sometimes unclear nature of this reply.

I think you've been overlooking a crucial fact here. We would have utter chaos if Signpost articles were substantially revised so long after they were published; I don't think any Signpost journalist is going to agree working for Signpost if this is going to happen because that's the way a publication works - this is not the equivalent of a Wikipedia article that can be revised forever, and its audience is far more limited (not just in number and scope, but in the time for which it is read and the degree of weight that is placed on it). Rageoss had a lot of trouble sometimes with this issue and the concerns were numerous. As I told you, if it's an extreme factual inaccuracy that reflects on the report as a whole, Signpost will direct readers to the matter without altering text - it may even consider raising the matter in the next issue; that's all Signpost is ready to do, and I hope you will appreciate the reasons for this. While rewrites should not happen, minor copyedits like typos can be fixed even after publication.

The original statement, which is juxtaposed at that venue, demonstrates that there was no clear link or direct statement by ArbCom in their announcement that this was a reversion to the old system. That was the primary reason for the omission which I tried to note earlier (even among what you considered as bad faith), obviously I did not do so successfully or this issue would not have been added to your summary. I still think ArbCom is responsible for the formal statements it makes and note that unfamiliar users came to the same conclusion after reading the original announcement. I do try to cover informal statements too, but there is an issue of balance and time (note the date of the original announcement). My point is that in the circumstances, what was written with respect to this issue was, not substandard, but acceptable on this point. I never said anything about perfect.

I also think that contrary to xeno's posoition (or possibly your view), saying that the results were dumped was perfectly acceptable and well within journalist discretion. (By this I'm not saying this can be yellow journalism or turn into editorialising; recently I specifically asked one of our writers to speicifcally not do that - but at the same time, this is a publication where any editor can ask questions or look for their own views on the facts.) Better feedback will come from users who are not familiar with ArbCom, what it does (be it offwiki or onwiki), and so on - xeno, you, and I are all up to date with what's going on, so our opinions are not the best, and none of us would ever place undue reliance on a news publication over looking at something and coming to your own conclusions; we are all sharp on that front. Purporting to change Wikipedia Signpost into a mere Wikipedia article is not what most of us signed up for. We certainly will take care to avoid misrepresenting something, but we are given a reasonable amount of discretion as journalists of news reports - which I used, not to editorialise, but to highlight. The tried to was probably just mid drafting that shouldn't have got there, but that is bound to happen on occasions even with care. Even so, we consciously chose never to serve in dispassionate roles so if the view of the bureaucrat is widely held, then I already noted where this will go.

But back to the point...I say dumping was an acceptable characterisation: Elections + results served the purpose of filling up to 6 OSers and 4 CUsers positions...they only filled 1 position...the rest of the results were deemed unsatisfactory due to a failure to serve that purpose and were dumped in favour of (what you've highlighted as) the former approach, otherwise 2 months after the election, calls for applicants would not have been made (let alone with specific encouragement to nearly every applicant as they were all deemed unsuccessful in the prior election). I don't see a need to let the Arbitration Report die a slow and terrible death through excruciatingly plain and boring articles merely because we have not followed the letter of what a few people wanted (that could further be broken down into a very limited subset of users). This goes for both for positive and negative. In spite of your comments at WT:ACN, there was certainly enough comments to suggest that there are editors who do not agree with your position on the actual issue either, and making editors think (so they actually crticially analyse something beyond the mere original words, even if they end up agreeing or disagreeing with any set position) is far more beneficial than living in an otherwise identical bubble, and I still think this much was achieved with this issue, in spite of it being imperfect. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This really is a long screed of text so I'll understand if you don't see any value in this, but I'm leaving it there for the record anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question...

I'm in no way involved (and I'm asking you because I believe you're also in no way involved - feel free to decline to answer if you are) but a friend asked me, so I'm asking you...!

Do you know how far away Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change is from being resolved?

That is all! I assume you either wouldn't know, couldn't find out, or wouldn't tell me anything more than that, anyway! TFOWR 18:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uninvolved, and thank goodness for that, given how long the disputes are on the case pages alone. But I don't know the answer to your question to be honest; there's no set date/time as far as I am aware - I'd probably be very concerned if no workshop proposals by arbs (or if this is going to be skipped again, proposed decision) was posted sometime next week at the absolute latest though. I will note that nowadays, it's usually when someone gets curious about this (be it a participant or non-participant) and asks the drafter(s) on-wiki that I find out for myself, in a formal sense anyway. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, and thanks! I was surprised I was asked, to be honest - I'm blissfully unaware of arb stuff most of the time ;-) TFOWR 20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Naadapriya sock

I suspect Avanale is a sock of Naadapriya. Same behaviour as Naadapriya - claims consensus where none exists, insists others are wrong and he is right, new user familiar with Wikipedia policies etc. I am not sure where to report this. I saw your name in an earlier SPI investigation for Naadapriya, so came here for advice. Any advice how to proceed?--Sodabottle (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's him; it's better to deny recognition,; I've forwarded the note to YellowMonkey. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--Sodabottle (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something you may wish to know of,

Per my watchlist, and several popups, I noticed you were reverting/redacting the edits of a banned user. To that end, please see the template I created, {{Banredac}} which can serve that purpose.(note it must be substituted, please see the template page for more info). Cheers! — Dædαlus Contribs 05:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I have discussed this matter with a few trusted users, including HaeB, and it is after reaching agreement that he is posting a note at here - whatever it says, that has my endorsement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock tags

I don't know if I've asked you already, but please do not add sock tags to both the user page and the talk page of the same user; it makes tracking through the categories(of the amount of socks, for instance) rather difficult, as there are duplicates. If you tag a sock, please only do so on the user page and not the talk page. Thank you.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Already doing so, and I'm not saying you should for all past cases, but all future cases, please.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Just to let you know, I'm leaving the Signpost until further notice. WackyWace converse | contribs 13:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an editor has sent me several e-mails that are quite upsetting and I just don't feel I can work with him any longer. I enjoy writing the Signpost, and maybe I'll be back in a couple of weeks once everything has died down. WackyWace converse | contribs 13:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let one user shape your perceptions about the rest of Signpost and its team. ;) You earned your right on Signpost through the quality work you've produced week after week - let me emphasise, the work you've produced. Your input counts just as much as anyone else; if he/she cannot be respectful, this will only slowly gnaw away at other contributors - that issue can be addressed without leaving gaps in Signpost coverage. Even if you are taking a break for a couple of weeks, you should keep your name registered for the responsibility; I am sure Mono doesn't share that editor's views and would like your assistance every fortnight at least. Other than myself, others will surely want you to stay too. Think about it...and if you want to discuss anything, you can talk to me as well (my email is open). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have resolved my dispute with the editor, restored my name to the regular responsibilites table and will be back to the Signpost very soon. Thank you very much for the kind words, WackyWace converse | contribs 14:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have you back on board; you're welcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deletable image - Muthiah Bhagavatar‎

Hi, Looks like the image was uploaded by you. It has been tagged for delete. Kindly do the needful.

Edit History : Muthiah Bhagavatar‎; 05:48 . . (+28) . . SoxBot (talk | contribs) (BOT: tagging File:Muthiahbhagavathar1.jpg with Template:deletable image-caption )

Thanks. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 00:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Favour...

Not sure if you'll (a) be around at the appropriate time, or (b) be willing to get involved anyway, but if you you are and are (!) I wondered if you'd mind "sanity checking" something I've been asked to do...

There are three straw polls at English Defence League:

...which I've been asked to close. (My plan is to do so at 10:30 UTC today, i.e. in just under three hours).

I am involved at that article, and my political views are reasonably well known (in general I've not hidden them, though I'd like to think they in no way affect my objectivity as far as this article is concerned). There's a general thread on my talkpage for some background, and a specific sub-thread about the polls.

If you could monitor my close, comment beforehand if you feel I'd be inappropriate to close, and generally make sure I'm behaving sensibly it would be appreciated.

Apologies for this - I feel I'm abusing your WT:BISE "counsel" status somewhat, but I thought you'd be an excellent person to do this based on your policy experience. TFOWR 07:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second and third poll are probably the easier ones to close; the only issues that I suspect may arise are in the first, though I came to a conclusion on that too. If you close it at the time you've noted, I'll try to keep my eyes on it. In the meantime (for up to a few hours), I'll also be available via email which you may want to use. Also will note that it might have been better to make a note at the discussion that you'd close it in x number of hours - if no participants disagreed, there'd be no issue (though my availability is limited after a few hours time, onwards until sometime on Saturday). Obviously, the participant that asked for your close despite your advice has no grounds to complain, and so long as you exercise reasonable judgement, the risk (if any) is limited, but this is a call you'll need to make. Hope that helps (somewhat). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed help, thanks. I'll drop a note on the talk page now - somewhat belatedly - that I intend to close in one hour. I'll start consideration now, and may email you before the close for a quick "sanity check". Thanks again. TFOWR 09:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good job; you're welcome. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and done! Thanks again. TFOWR 11:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another favour

...actually more of an FYI! I'm going to be away next week. As you understand the "legal background" to the British Isles sanctions, it might be worth pinging any admin who steps forward. TFOWR 14:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems no one has taken a bite...meanwhile, I'm still secretly hoping that probation isn't going to be needed next week. :P Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've told the WT:BISE if there are any problems to nag you ;-) Nah, they'll raise any issues at ANI. It's ANI's fault, anyway! TFOWR 17:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, and then I'll say "hm, yes, this is a very serious issue" and twiddle my thumbs until you come back. :P Nah, you're right...ANI will take it...it's always a mess. Even AC has "troubles" trying to resolve the matters you were looking into...yet you've accomplished more than they have in some regards. I will be waiting for your return. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Properly certified?

As a user familiar with the RFC process, perhaps you could lend some insight as to whether an RFC has been properly certified? Discussion begins at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pmanderson#This RfC is still uncertified. Thanks, –xenotalk 19:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, that hasn't been properly certified - the sort of progression one should be able to see for a properly certified RfC/U can be seen in this one, though the couple or so RfC/Us since then have somehow scraped through it seems. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

Signpost misquote

I think you misunderstood me here. We received 27 inquiries. I did not say applications. Further information will be provided on August 13th. KnightLago (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NSW cricketer photo poll

Right, I've set it up. Thanks for asking. I made some adjustments to my technique, so hopefully it's better. Many thanks again YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Thanks

I very much endorse your second bullet point in particular. Steve Smith (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AE discussion

For future reference, the relevant procedures for reversing/appealing administrator enforcement actions are also here, which is probably easier than looking up cases/motions.  Roger Davies talk 13:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thank you. I don't recall this page (but I remember about AN/ANI). Given the concern expressed in the first couple of lines here about some inconsistency, it would help if the following two suggestions are implemented. First, the notice at the top of the AE page (and any other relevant arb pages) are updated in line with the page you've linked - it would mean both the experienced and inexperienced can look at the same place efficiently. Second, in simple cases like this where an user is clearly trying to convey an appeal to the community, it would be helpful if the actual appeal by the restricted user (that is, the original text they made in the appeal) can be pasted at AN rather than the whole thing being shut down after the community was notified of the appeal. I think both would require explicit authorisation from arbs though.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first point is actually already addressed in the WP:AE header, where the text from the motion is reproduced. However, it's a lengthy header and the appeal bits are easily overlooked. I don't have time right now to look at this closely myself but I will mention it to one of my colleagues, and see where we go from there. The second point would, as you say, probably involve a broader committee discussion and our current workload being what it is is unlikely to be swiftly resolved. Thanks for the input,  Roger Davies talk 21:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speed of light clarification

Hi there I just wanted to let you know that the Speed of Light clarification has been merged with Wikipedia:A/R/A#Request to amend prior case: Speed of light. NW (Talk) 23:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan kirkpatrick

I just noticed the AfC on this user, and that he's been mentioned on AN and blocked for sockpuppetry. This I believe is the same user that previously went by the name of Alastairward and most recently WikiuserNI - he's been changing aliases frequently. He's been involved in several incidents in other fields as well, unilaterally editing f.i. game related articles, ignoring consensus by other editors and refusing cooperation or communicative discussion. He also seems to be making anonymous edits under different IP:s to insert contested changes under the radar. Hope this helps. Miqademus (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite odd to read. I used to post under one other username. This was then changed (through the proper channels) for reasons of privacy. I post under no alternative accounts, if I accidentally edit while logged out, I always come back to sign my remarks on talk pages.
I am familiar with edits by user Ryan Kirkpatrick, having removed many of his entries from the article mentioned in his RFC, the List of terrorist incidents, 2010. On that RFC page, you can see that I agreed that something had to be done about his behaviour, and the (lengthy) edit history of that list article will show some reverts I made of his edits.
Since our two edit histories and edit styles are completely different, I can't think of any reason why I should be mistaken for that other editor. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I can't make sense of this which is why I asked for more information. I wanted to give Miquademus an opportunity to clarify his position before turning this into a formal "someone's accused, accused defends themselves, accuser responds, accused responds, action/no-action is taken cycle" which is time-consuming in itself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that cycle, having been foisted upon it by a few editors who noticed that they'd all been involved with content disputes with me and opened some joint wikiquette alerts about my editing.
This time its a pretty straightforward false accusation of sockpuppetry, which I don't think will go very far. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, I misread the RfC in the light of my experience of WikiuserNI's history of conflicts with other editors coupled with his involvement in terrorist-related articles (which I am not an editor or reader of myself) and his name change. No false accusations intended. Miqademus (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Attention and participation

Your attention and participation is invited here: Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#Ncmvocalist_needs_to_step_down_or_be_replaced — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CC RFAR

Which arb is unhappy with your reporting? I didn't see comments from any of them at the Signpost page. Anyway I don't see anything at all wrong with what you've written. There are some people who like to fret over every little thing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International child abduction

The article International child abduction was giving a "low" rating on the importance scale by a user not listed as being a rater. This is a complex area of international law, the subject of extensive conferences, Conventions, books, forums, papers, careers and daily news articles and stories read and investigated by the public. Is it really considered of "low" importance to WP's law project? If so, can someone please clarify further why? I looked at some of the other "high" articles and, while I do see some, critically important ones I see many that have less popular (ie public) interest or legal scale, complexity or scholarship. The SoS and POTUS even recently commented publicly on a ICA case (ie Sean Goldman) and the US Supreme Court just heard the Abbott v Abbott case, The ECHR also just heard, yet another, Hague Abduction Convention case. Congress has held nearly a dozen hearings on the topic and it can quickly become a high level political issue...Not to mention that for families affected by this area of law it quickly becomes a focal point of their lives.--Cybermud (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 16:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

re Sven

After re-reading LessHeardthanU's comment, I stand by my response. Him striking out (I personally don't buy into striking out a comment no one's responded to yet; if you're going to refactor, actually refactor rather than leaving it as some passive-aggressive reminder) doesn't change the fact that he essentially called everyone who doesn't care to constantly translate Sven's remarks as "lazy and stupid", while ignoring that, from my perspective at least (And Sven could easily repair this), it is Sven who has refused, for one reason or another (malice or ignorance) the tools that could vastly improve both his experience here and our dealings with him. If I'm still vastly misreading it, please let me know. --Golbez (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per your request that I change or remove my comments from the ANI discussion: do you object to the term "disruptive troll" or the phrase "due to his claimed disability?" I am willing to use a term other than "disruptive troll" but I am not willing to accept automatically someone's claim of having a condition which only allows him to post in an invented and almost indecipherable "shorthand." Such a claim does not negate the behavioral guideline that talk page comments should be in English or should have an English translation. Claiming to have a disease or condition is not a "golden ticket" automatically exempting one from the guidelines or policies which allow Wikipedia to function. Thanks. Edison (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arb Rep

Hi, it's not clear in the summary of the R and I case that the italicised bits are actual quotes from the decision (are they?). If so, I'm unsure it's necessary to quote such large slabs, which are necessarily bureaucratic and not user-friendly. I'm confused about the indenting, the alternation between roman and italic text. Tony (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they started off as quotes but they were later reworded so italics would not be appropriate (except perhaps as an aesthetic feature). I've modified it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

This tool article

Hi, Mario hasn't been online for some time. I think now is the time to act, and I'm unconcerned about the niceties and protocol when we can easily solve a significant problem. I'm not great on tools; do you have enough knowledge to prioritise what this week's might be? Could this wretched Dispatches problem be solved by simply creating a new "story" page so there's no political baggage? Can you let me know if you think this is possible and we could ask HaeB. Tony (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a PS about the Arb report. Will you consider using a singular title ("Open case") when there's only one item? Do we need "recently" under the "Motions"? And do we need "this week" at the top, and "During the week", under "Other"? Like F and A, I wonder whether the default assumption isn't always that the report concerns what has happened since the last Signpost edition. It would be neater, IMO. I'll have a go now; see if you like these minor changes. Tony (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it should not have been a plural title - I think it got carried over from last week by mistake. The 'recently' was just to signal that the motions aren't something that were done like a day after the previous report, but really quite recent (a bit like hot news off the press). But seeing there's so much of it this week, I don't mind letting that go in this issue. I think we'll have to look at the week thing on an issue-by-issue basis because there are occasions where I think it should be kept, but this is not one of them, so the changes are fine. Though, I prefer the word quantity in regards to the case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arb report

I hope this is a reasonable compromise, giving enough necessary info but 1) without language that may lead the reader to certain conclusions and 2) to avoid breaching the arbcom directives. (I'll follow your talk.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ncmvocalist&oldid=383252294"