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 501: Line 501:
Glad to see you at the [[WP:POST|''Signpost'']]! I wanted to welcome you aboard and thank you for contributing. Good luck! <font face="Papyrus" size="4">—<span style="cursor:crosshair">[[user:Mono|<font color="gold">'''m'''</font><font color="orange">'''o'''</font><font color="red">'''n'''</font><font color="purple">'''o''']]</font></span></font> 21:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Glad to see you at the [[WP:POST|''Signpost'']]! I wanted to welcome you aboard and thank you for contributing. Good luck! <font face="Papyrus" size="4">—<span style="cursor:crosshair">[[user:Mono|<font color="gold">'''m'''</font><font color="orange">'''o'''</font><font color="red">'''n'''</font><font color="purple">'''o''']]</font></span></font> 21:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
:Thank you for the warm welcome! :) [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist#top|talk]]) 09:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
:Thank you for the warm welcome! :) [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist#top|talk]]) 09:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mayumashu ==

Hi Ncmvocalist: Please do not place any templates or try to close any [[WP:RFC]] ''before'' a full 48 hours have elapsed from the time the RFC was posted. Thank you. [[User:IZAK|IZAK]] ([[User talk:IZAK|talk]]) 14:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:36, 22 June 2010

Ncmvocalist is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries, but expects to be active again soon.

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]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mayumashu

Hi Ncmvocalist: Please do not place any templates or try to close any WP:RFC before a full 48 hours have elapsed from the time the RFC was posted. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ncmvocalist&oldid=369553927"