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 1,664: Line 1,664:
:*I'm starting to ask whether we have already got to the point where [[This Town Ain't Big Enough for Both of Us|this town isn't big enough for the both of us]]? <span class="plainlinks">Yes, I ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom&diff=prev&oldid=406858322 was]'' indeed trying to make a point; I'm not doing that again. It's time for both of us to grow up, if we are to work together. Unless, of course, you are not prepared to collaborate with me, in which case it's about time you took your own name off the worklist. </span> Regards, --[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc;text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 11:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:*I'm starting to ask whether we have already got to the point where [[This Town Ain't Big Enough for Both of Us|this town isn't big enough for the both of us]]? <span class="plainlinks">Yes, I ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom&diff=prev&oldid=406858322 was]'' indeed trying to make a point; I'm not doing that again. It's time for both of us to grow up, if we are to work together. Unless, of course, you are not prepared to collaborate with me, in which case it's about time you took your own name off the worklist. </span> Regards, --[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc;text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]] 11:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::*I'm not going to let the report turn into a circus as a result of your childishness, so if you continue to edit in the way that you have been, you might as well find another report that you can actually make useful or quality contributions to. I'd so far been working under the assumption that you are ready to work together after seeing your note last year in the Newsroom; so far, you have been furthering an impression that suggests otherwise which has prompted me to raise this with HaeB. I don't believe you have taken the time to think about what you have done or the fact that you need to get your act together. I'll be waiting to hear from HaeB as to if and when that you do. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist#top|talk]]) 11:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
::*I'm not going to let the report turn into a circus as a result of your childishness, so if you continue to edit in the way that you have been, you might as well find another report that you can actually make useful or quality contributions to. I'd so far been working under the assumption that you are ready to work together after seeing your note last year in the Newsroom; so far, you have been furthering an impression that suggests otherwise which has prompted me to raise this with HaeB. I don't believe you have taken the time to think about what you have done or the fact that you need to get your act together. I'll be waiting to hear from HaeB as to if and when that you do. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist#top|talk]]) 11:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
:This should be added to the [[WP:LAME|list of lamest edit wars]]. In order to avoid you both getting blocked due to your egos, I would highly suggest you simply remove the credit line to end this ridiculousness. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 11:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:50, 9 January 2011

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]

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]

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.[1] The discussion is about the topic Seeking admin assistance for disruptive editor. [2]. Thank you. Eurytemora (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recall RFA

The Socratic Barnstar
Regarding this edit [[3]], 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 [4]. 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

[5] 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

[6] (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 [7] 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]

Note to self: see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:1Operaman. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:45, 23 September 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]

If I'm asking this of the wrong person or in the wrong place I'd appreciate you saying as much since your name is the only one listed on the "assessment team." Thanks.--Cybermud (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. This article seems to fit between mid and high importance - I've marked it as the latter, but note that some people may correctly form the view that it is the former also. It's definitely not low and I'm not sure why it was originally marked as such. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:30, 21 September 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]

I think you've expressed a concern where there is no concern to express; readers come to their own conclusions after being given a full picture of what occurred on-wiki (including the timing of comments) and that's all the report has provided. All quoted comments are purely those made by arbitrators so I don't see the sense in removing it. As for the mention about the length of Signpost, I always factor that in while writing and I would not have marked it as done if it was too long based on readers feedback this year. In such circumstances, the only time we might be in breach is if readers start moving the discussion from WT:ACN to our Signpost pages, but when Signpost readers discuss something they should not (eg; breaching privacy concerns) on our pages, Signpost will act to remedy those issues, even if this means clamping the discussion or refactoring comments that may be in breach. We've done that quite recently when it occurred on a non-arb report. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But some of the language was potentially leading the reader and unnecessary (within half an hour, immediate, as well, etc), and I left the arb quote, but removed the non-arb quote. I hope that's a reasonable compromise. In order to comply with arbcom directives, this is one instance where brevity may be desired. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ncm, rethinking this with more clarity, I have a COI in this matter and should not have edited there, so do as you must, but please take into account my concerns and the arbcom directives. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you actually removed an arb quote (so it doesn't make sense to be breaching the so-called directive by quoting the same so-called directive); I'll clarify that seeing you may have misunderstood that if you didn't check the diff (which is what readers should be doing anyway). Regarding timings, they are context relevant to providing full disclosure on what we are permitted to provide full disclosure on - content that is accessible to all users on Wikipedia. Any content that should not be accessible to all users on Wikipedia, be because it is suppressed by Oversighters or arbitrators, or because it is information that is submitted through proper off-wiki means, does not become a part of the report for obvious reasons. Incidentally, Signpost, as an independent publication, was respecting the courtesy and understanding requested from arbs. I can appreciate you were acting in good faith, but I was online, and you could have double checked with me before jumping to any conclusions, unless you think I generally never know what I'm doing. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had removed a Xeno quote; am I mistaken? It was not a matter of thinking you don't know what you're doing, but rather those who aren't part of this matter may not "see" the language as others may; at any rate, it was inappropriate for me to edit that entry considering my COI, but this dawned on me after the fact :) I am still concerned that some of the language was leading the reader, but I will leave it to you. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused about the need to include the Xeno quote particularly since it includes a grammatical mistake :) But again, I apologize for not recognizing my own COI and for my interference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was Coren's quote. Have removed Xeno...it seems that was the source of confusion, among other things. :) My only concern is the opportunity you may have inadvertantly provided - see the talk page of the report. And yeah, next time, just ask me to double check and we'll talk about any specific issues so as to avoid the sort of trainwreck which appears to have resulted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rather unique situation; I hope there will never be another "next time" ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see [8]! Just to avoid misunderstandings: Does this mean that the answer to my question "Do the users who objected to earlier versions still have serious concerns about the present one?" is (to your knowledge) "No"? Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and I made a few changes before calling it done to action the possible concerns that can be raised over it. I've just seen what Sandy has been saying elsewhere and this was my response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a response on Risker's page, just to keep it all in one place. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the house that Jack built

If you please, may I invite you to consider investing some time and thought reviewing a few paragraphs which use the Schengen Agreement as an exemplar.

Perhaps you also know someone else who might be more interested in this kind of narrowly-focused editing problem?

My personal interest is in developing neutral, dispute-resistant and clear foundational paradigms and templates for discussing edits to unequal treaties and other topics which are inherently controversial. Examples of unequal treaties include

Am I correct in assuming that you know the children's story about the house that Jack built? --Tenmei (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Before you launch in

Read a proper study of the matter here, and be reminded that Wikiquette alerts concern abuse and rudeness, not style issues or who moved what where. Tony (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) I read that prior to responding. 2) As an editor who has responded to WQA disputes for the past few years and brought them towards resolution, I know how the process works and what issues are within its purview and what issues we direct elsewhere under what circumstances. The circumstances in this case require your conduct to be reviewed as it was provocative and not in compliance with expected standards; it was, in part, responsible for this dispute. 3) This is a view on approach + conduct which is what is getting in the way of everything, not a determination on what the best content position is. That is, I won't be worse off if you choose not to cooperate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh

I don't want to belabour the point (perhaps already have) but it doesn't really make sense to move from the specific to the general when the specific doesn't even support the general argument. –xenotalk 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it might be a good thing though. That is, importing the minutia from one situation into general may seem more logical, but how ideal or helpful it might be is a question of its own. It's always good to know what is on people's minds, and I suspect this sort of thing will happen even more often than usual in the coming weeks. Btw, can you believe we're already in September? I can't. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't either - time sure does fly. I nearly had to use the heat in my car this morning. =) On an entirely unrelated note, have you opined on this subject? It's ripe for closure. –xenotalk 15:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I haven't; didn't even realise it was being discussed! :S Will leave a brief comment there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WT:BISE - "in this case"

Strictly hypothetical at this point, with only one topic ban, but picking up on your ANI comment "if you think a conduct issue is too minor to enforce by a longer block in regards to this particular user, don't bother because short blocks are evidently not working in this case" - with more than one editor topic banned would this potentially result in a situation where one editor was blocked (short duration) for "something", while another editor evaded a block because their block log was long? Or have I misunderstood? I do see the merit in your approach - it's going to avoid me having to explain to ANI that I've just blocked an editor for six months for calling another editor something only a little rude - but I'm concerned about the potential for regular violators getting away with things that newbie violators wouldn't get away with. TFOWR 14:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key to the approach is rope, as it tries to avoid the "fed up users" result of the (never ending story of short blocks for this user) alternative. But yes, there's loops which would make this approach generally unsuitable except for certain cases. The concern you've described is the cost of this approach, but be ready for other situations which might be exceptions to my comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. The "never ending story" is interesting - I'm surprised that block length has decreased as well as increased. But cost - I think I can buy into this: the cost is hypothetical, anyway, right now and is probably me over-thinking things anyway. Thanks again. TFOWR 16:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible mythtakes

As a member of the Crypto project, I am often confronted with mythological quandries. Some of these are mythtakes and others are just mythteries. Because of it's nature, people often look upon the Cryto portal with a certain mythanthropic outlook and do not tak it seriously.

Would these mythterious occurrences be a one off or have I stumbled across a genuine mythtake. (check the wikilinks). Please let me know the outcome of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendroche (talk • contribs) 23:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you telling me this? Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

Thanks very much for your thoughts, I appreciate them. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I would be happy to reopen the report, which would basically strike the resolved line completely; it was certainly never my intention to misrepresent anyone's views or to inflame someone who was already under duress. Let me see what I can do to calm things down, and thank you again. — e. ripley\talk 17:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime; you're very welcome. I've added a stuck tag with what I'd have written for this dispute - please let me know what you think of it in terms of accuracy; I hope it covers your comment too as well as the other responses. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think it's fine. At this point I would probably have left it open for a little while just in case Tony1 wanted to offer some additional comments, given his level of dissatisfaction, but perhaps he's ready to let it rest. If not, then we can reconsider. — e. ripley\talk 18:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waste not ...

For what it's worth, I didn't bother reading the rant you left on my talk page, once the opening sentence pointed to where it was going. Just binned it, nice and quick. Tony (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, an alternative strategy by you and me would be to work together, and emphasise the positive rather than the negative. It would make for a more satisfying experience for both of us at The Signpost. Tony (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Eh?

Eh? ResMar 21:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're awesome

The new WQA interface looks much better! Great job with the design and everything. :p Netalarmtalk 04:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, nearly all of the credit goes to my very talented friend. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

browser

Out of curiosity, do you use Firefox? If you do, you know the little status bar icon that rotates when a page is loading? Do you see that thing continuing to rotate on your talk page now, even after the page seems to have finished loading and is fully visible? Or if you're using another browser with a comparable feature and see something like that, I'd appreciate your telling me. This is sort of distantly tangential to the Stevertigo issue. Thanks. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finding a suitable unblock condition for User:Iaaasi

As I read the discussion at Wikipedia:AN#Proposed unblock of User:Iaaasi, I see no consensus for simple unblock, but there might be a way to unblock subject to conditions.

What would you think of a 1RR/week restriction on any articles subject to WP:DIGWUREN? This would cover all the Hungarian/Romanian articles anyway, which is most likely what he would edit.

In your comment you mentioned 'an appropriate Romanian/Hungarian topic ban,' plus a restriction to a single account. I notice that ResidentAnthropologist (supported by two others) favors another restriction, which doesn't sound very workable to me. One thing Iaaasi did in the past was add or remove alternative place names from articles, which is (unfortunately) a typical activity for ethnic partisans. For instance here. But if we shut him out from all Hungarian/Romanian topics he might not find much of interest to work on. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't quite convinced by ResidentAnthropologist's proposal. :) I think the conditions would need to be divided into two parts: (1) general restrictions that apply everywhere and (2) restrictions concerning articles subject to DIGUWAREN. Under (1), we could list:
  • Iaaasi is limited to editing with a single account.
  • (anything else that needs to be added)
Under (2), In relation to pages subject to WP:DIGWUREN, Iaaasi is:
  • prohibited from adding or removing alternative names in articles (example of what not to do)
  • limited to no more than one reversion per article per week (excepting obvious vandalism) and required to discuss reversions that he makes.
  • (anything else needs to be added)
I suspect many people will want more conditions than that though.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Due to discovery of recent socking by Iaaasi (in August), I decided to oppose an unblock anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

When you list editors supporting a community sanction on Stevertigo it would be helpful if you label them involved or uninvolved. (I'm uninvolved.) To my eye, the number of uninvolved is yet too small to represent a consensus for imposing a community sanction. Another administrator might have their own view. Jehochman Talk 09:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ncmvocalist asked me to document my level of involvement. I'm not involved in Stevertigo's recent disputes. I've reverted his OR a few times over the years. I tried to defend him during the AN/I discussion in September 2009, where some editors wanted a community ban; I suggested (e.g. here) that if he would stick to supplying sources a ban could be avoided. My most-recent sustained interaction with him was at Animal rights in May this year, where he removed sourced material from the lead and replaced it with his own opinion. Several of us debated with him on the talk page here between May 3 and 24 about the need to use sources. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ncmvocalist asked me to document my level of involvement. I am not and have not been involved in Stevertigo's recent disputes. I have engaged in heated conflict with him on the Talk: Jesus page, the Talk: Yeshu page, and perhaps a couple of other pages, over the past few years. I have reverted some of his edits to these articles, although not all, and I do not recall any disputes that ever reached the 3RR point. I would not consider myself a neutral party and hope I never gave that impression. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt responses to my requests; I appreciate your assistance. I might have further questions for some of you and I hope you'll help out again in the same way if that's the case. I note that many prior steps in dispute resolution have been tried including RfC/U and prior arbitration prior to requesting community intervention, and there's a fairly ordinary split in involvement/uninvolvement that we see in a lot of other sanction discussions. It may be a few more days before I can say any more as there are a few other things that are being looked into in relation to this. Thanks again, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments. These are very helpful. What strikes me is that most of the early commentary in the thread on ANI was from editors who were involved in the current disputes. We then have additional comments from people who've had past disagreements with Stevertigo, running the spectrum from minor to fairly substantial, as well as comments from editor who have no involvement nor history with Stevertigo whatsoever. My suggestion is for an uninvolved administrator (I don't have time at the moment to do this myself), re-read the discussion, keeping in mind that the discussion started very negatively by involved editors. I do not think this was the best way to treat an established editor, and that Stevertigo was justified in asking ArbCom to review the matter. It would have been better to start an RFC to document the problem, rather than going straight to ANI. Nevertheless, an administrator can re-read the discussion, and try to glean what the community consensus was by filtering out any sort of bias. That done, the result should be posted and reported to ArbCom. I think it would be best to suspend the imposition of any sanction pending ArbCom's review. I believe ArbCom will generally adopt whatever the community decides, so long as the result is backed by the evidence. Jehochman Talk 12:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to be clear about the difference between different meanings of "uninvolved." The policy on administrative action is, "In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved." But discussing a community ban is not an administrative action, it is a community action. I think my past involvement in conflicts with Tigo does mean that I should not take any administrative action against him. But there is no reason why my views should not count equally in a discussion of a community sanction. In fact, when it coms to a community ban it is quite common that the editors who reach a consensus are ones who have been involved in conflicts over time - these are precisely the people who have informed views that should go into making any community decision.
The task of an administrator is to enforce a community decision and I agree that any admin who has a history of conflict with Stevertigo should not take administrative action.
But this is separate from speaking out as an editor in a community discussion. There is no policy that prohibits people with past conflicts with a user from voicing a view in a discussion concerning a community sanction - and having one's voice be given the same weight as any other editors'. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to just simply say that every editor who participated in the case, is currently in good standing - or something like that. Unless actual bias is present or apparent I don't see how it matters how much involvement any person has. Also, I have not seen this done at other ANI's. So why is it happening at this ANI? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do and should consider people's involvement/uninvolvement; it doesn't (usually) reflect on their standing, but it helps determine consensus. As for the silly remark Jehochman made in relation to negativity: sanction discussions tend to start off negatively because something negative is what prompts an user to request sanctions, and that is often first stemming from an involved user's concerns. I'd suggest that tugging at straws is counterproductive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I stand by the comments I have made - I think Stevertigo is a disruptive editor at best. But in my initial comment I tried to make clear that he and I have a history of conflict, and I certainly think it is reasonable and important for people to be clear about what kinds of experiences (if any) lead them to support some sanction and especially to make clear if there has ever been conflict. But I have to admit I really am confused now about the status of the AN/I discussion. Is it ongoing? If it is closed and archived that needs to be clear. I have my doubts about the appropriateness of ArbCom in this case, so whether the AN/I thread is definitevely over or not matters to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's still open, but closing formalities are being looked at now so it will be ready for closure sometime during the week starting 04/10/10 (probably in the middle of the week). In the event other users choose to participate in that discussion in the meantime, they should be directed to state their level of involvement (if any) so we don't have to repeat this cycle or delay. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo

I am not directly involved in the dispute that has been taken at ArbCom. I made a statement as an uninvolved paty in which I provided my impression of Stevertigo's contributions to Wikipedia since 2002. I really do not have anything to add to that statement. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the conventional Wikipedia definition of the term, you're an involved editor because of your extensive and heated disputes with Stevertigo over a period of at least six years ([14], Talk:Holocaust_denial/Archive_14#Conceptualization_issues, for example.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In which policy did you find your "conventional Wikipedia definition of the term?" ArbConm has clear policies and guidelines, and they are the only ones that govern ArbCom cases. Please provide the link to the part of the policy to which you refer. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant line in the applicable policy is "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."·Maunus·ƛ· 20:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this does not apply to me. You are quoting the policy on admins relating to administrative action, not to ArbCom cases. Moreover, I have never used my administrative tools against Stevetigo, and the ArbCom case does not involve the use or misuse of admin tools. In this particular conflict my being an admin is not an issue, because none of my conflicts with Tigo were over administrative actions.

The point of this policy is that people who have been involved in edit conflicts ("construed very broadly") should not then use their administrative tools in any conflict with the other editor. And I have followed this policy: I have always been up-front that i have had edit conflicts with Tigo which is why I have never used my administrative tools to take actions against him even if administrative action was called for.

But this policy is not at all relevant to the current ArbCom case, and it does not make me an involved editor in the ArbCom Case. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NCMVocalist isn't asking about involvement in the arbcom process, nor are we trying to make you a party to that case, but rather NCMV is asking about involvement in the ANI dispute with SV, he is tallying the vote count and needs to take into account which editors are involved. The passaged from WP:Involved is specifically about how the community construes the term involved in general not just in relation to admin's use of tools in disputes. I think it is fairly obvious that your long history of heated disputes with SV makes you at least "formerly involved" - I have only ever edited with SV once which before this case and I consider that to make me semi-involved as well. I don't see why it is a problem to be involved.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

\Apologies for my mistake - I wish Peter Karlsen had said this when I first replied that I am uninvolved at the ArbCom case. I thought the AN/I action had ben closed and archived with the conclusion that there was no consensus, and thus no action resulting from it. I did not realize that anyone was still refering to it. Anyway, I hope that the reply I just provided is adequate. The fact remains that I have never taken administrative action against Stevertigo nor have I proposed to, in compliance ith the policy. I have yet to see a policy that prohibits involved editors from participating fully in a community discussion that might lead to a community consensus. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, everyone is allowed to participate fully. ANI discussion is still continuing Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo/September_2010. I just think Vocalist wanted to see if the consensus forming was just old grudges out to get SV. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right; sorry if I wasn't very clear. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Slrubenstein's response may be applicable to other participants. Other participants may not be aware that the ANI is still open, and that discussion continues. Should these other participants be notified that this is the case? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there's no harm in doing so, but I don't think that it will necessarily change anything. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

Change of target [15]. I have edited the closing template to bring this comment to the surface so Machine Elf can at least get it off their chest. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers; I find myself shrugging my shoulders at his later response though ([16])...meh, I guess. :S Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well... I can't help feeling there's maybe a language issue, or a difficulty in dealing with the Mediawiki format.... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for being fair. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Rollback feature

Is there a problem with the changes I made? The previous version, which you have now restored, is not at all clear about the distinction between rollback in general (which may be used for any purpose, since rollback with a manually-specified edit summary is completely indistinguishable from a normal edit) and rollback by clicking "rollback" links (which should only be used in a limited set of circumstances, since only a generic edit summary is used) Gurch (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, other than the fact it cut important bits from the previous version, it made things less clear about general rollback (too technical) - the point is being lost when trying to say that in that section. I think I understand what you're trying to say - that rollback itself is OK so long as the summary is also included; will try to incorporate that a little differently over the next couple of days so that hopefully it all makes sense in terms of guidance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rollback surgery

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Rollback_feature#Mass_changes_by_Gurch. Based on your very recent edits to the guideline, I thought you might have some relevant insight. Toddst1 (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; agreed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

AN response

Please see here In case you aren't watching my AN request, I figured I would let you know that I responded to your comments there. I would honestly be interested in what--if anything--you have to say in response. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded there. Thanks for letting me know, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Your notifications of the current SecurePoll RfC

Hi Ncm:

I see you notified this morning a bunch of editors who participated in the November RfC. This is great work as the more the merrier, as they say! These were:

  1. User talk:Acalamari
  2. User talk:Atmoz
  3. User talk:Awadewit
  4. User talk:Bejinhan
  5. User talk:Bibliomaniac15
  6. User talk:Burningview
  7. User talk:Chaser
  8. User talk:Christopher Parham
  9. User talk:Crohnie
  10. User talk:DC
  11. User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim
  12. User talk:Diderot's dreams
  13. User talk:Elonka
  14. User talk:Everyking
  15. User talk:Fastily
  16. User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise
  17. User talk:Gatoclass
  18. User talk:GlassCobra
  19. User talk:JayHenry
  20. User talk:Jc37
  21. User talk:Jehochman
  22. User talk:Kotra
  23. User talk:MarkusSchulze
  24. User talk:Modernist
  25. User talk:OhanaUnited
  26. User talk:Phantomsteve
  27. User talk:Piotrus
  28. User talk:Protonk
  29. User talk:Radiant!
  30. User talk:Rami R
  31. User talk:RayAYang
  32. User talk:Ruslik0
  33. User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris
  34. User talk:Smallman12q
  35. User talk:SoWhy
  36. User talk:Stephan Schulz
  37. User talk:Tex
  38. User talk:Themfromspace
  39. User talk:Unomi
  40. User talk:Vodello
  41. User talk:Vyvyan Ade Basterd
  42. User talk:YellowMonkey

However, they are not representative of the voters at that RfC as a whole and seem to be predominently people (a two to one ratio) who supported public (open) voting. Which is the opposite of the way the RfC went. I guess you're only part way through the notifications and you are intending to notify all the others who participated last November about the current RfC. If it helps you to get these out, here's a list of participants in the November RfC who have neither yet already participated in the current RfC nor yet been notified of it. (It was a quick hack in Word so it probably needs checking to make sure I caught everyone.) So those still needing to be notified are:

  1. ? User talk:AGK
  2. ? User talk:AlexandrDmitri
  3. X User talk:Amalthea
  4. Q User talk:Amorymeltzer
  5. Q User talk:Antipastor
  6. Q User talk:AtheWeatherman
  7. ? User talk:Badger Drink
  8. Q User talk:Barberio
  9. ? User talk:Basket of Puppies
  10. ? User talk:Beetstra
  11. Q User talk:Bfigura
  12. X User talk:BrianY
  13. X User talk:Camaron
  14. ? User talk:Captain panda
  15. Arbitrator User talk:Carcharoth
  16. X User talk:Carn
  17. ? User talk:Casliber
  18. X User talk:Cenarium
  19. ? User talk:Charles Matthews
  20. Q User talk:Ched Davis
  21. ? User talk:Chick Bowen
  22. Q User talk:Chrajohn
  23. Q User talk:Clickpop
  24. ? User talk:Cs32en
  25. ? User talk:Cybercobra
  26. ? User talk:Deserted Cities
  27. ? User talk:DGG
  28. Q User talk:Durova
  29. ? User talk:Escape Artist Swyer
  30. Q User talk:Finn Casey
  31. Q User talk:Gosox5555
  32. X User talk:Happy-melon
  33. X User talk:I Feel Tired
  34. ? User talk:Île_flottant
  35. Q User talk:IMatthew
  36. Q User talk:Irbisgreif
  37. X User talk:Ironholds
  38. X? User talk:Jake Wartenberg
  39. ? User talk:Jayron32
  40. ? User talk:John Vandenberg
  41. ? User talk:Jonathunder
  42. X User talk:Joopercoopers
  43. ? User talk:JoshuaZ
  44. X User talk:Juliancolton
  45. ? User talk:Karanacs
  46. ? User talk:Keegan
  47. X User talk:King of Hearts
  48. ? User talk:KrebMarkt
  49. X User talk:Kusma
  50. ? User talk:Lambiam
  51. ? User talk:Lankiveil
  52. ? User talk:LessHeard vanU
  53. X User talk:Luk
  54. Q User talk:M0RD00R
  55. ? User talk:M2Ys4U
  56. Q User talk:MagneticFlux
  57. Arbitrator User talk:Mailer diablo
  58. Q User talk:Majorly
  59. ? User talk:Malleus_Fatuorum
  60. Q User talk:Manning Bartlett
  61. ? User talk:Master&Expert
  62. X User talk:MBisanz
  63. Q User talk:Moreschi
  64. Q User talk:MoreThings
  65. ? User talk:MZMcBride
  66. X User talk:Nathan
  67. Q User talk:NellieBly
  68. Arbitrator User talk:Newyorkbrad
  69. ? User talk:Nmajdan
  70. ? User talk:Offliner
  71. ? User talk:Patar knight
  72. X User talk:Peregrine Fisher
  73. Q User talk:Philippe
  74. ? User talk:Privatemusings
  75. X User talk:Priyanath
  76. Q User talk:Pyfan
  77. ? User talk:Quantling
  78. X User talk:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
  79. ? User talk:Radeksz
  80. X User talk:Rannpháirtí anaithnid
  81. ? User talk:RexxS
  82. Q User talk:Rjd0060
  83. ? User talk:RL0919
  84. X User talk:Robofish
  85. ? User talk:RP459
  86. Q/? User talk:Russavia
  87. ? User talk:Sam Blacketer
  88. ? User talk:SandyGeorgia
  89. X User talk:Scott MacDonald
  90. Arbitrator User talk:SirFozzie
  91. X User talk:Skomorokh
  92. Q User talk:SlamDiego
  93. Q/? User talk:Splette
  94. Q User talk:Sssoul
  95. Q User talk:Staberinde
  96. X User talk:SteveMcCluskey
  97. X User talk:the wub
  98. Q/? User talk:Tznkai
  99. ? User talk:Ultraexactzz
  100. Q User talk:Unitanode
  101. X User talk:Until It Sleeps
  102. ? User talk:Valley2city
  103. Q User talk:Vassyana
  104. ? User talk:Vecrumba
  105. X User talk:Velvetsmog
  106. Q User talk:Who then was a gentleman?

It's probably quicker to send it out to the lot, rather than checking to see whether they all remain individually active! (And this avoids any suggestion of selectivity.) In this case, the notice wording may need tweaking to remove the reference to activity: but as far as I'm concerned it otherwise looks fine! Good luck, and thanks in advance for taking care of this!  Roger talk 11:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what you have stated, some 25 users on your list have already been notified and some 30 other users are inactive (a total of 55). For me, it's not actually quicker to manually send it out to the lot. By imposing those limits, I avoid: pressing the edit button on 55 user talk pages, pasting the message 55 times, and hitting the "Save page" button 55 times; I saved at least 165 unnecessary clicks and the time that goes with loading each thing. There is only a batch of 45 users who need to be notified as you will see from the list further below.
On a separate note, Roger, I don't waste my time on users who try to either make frivolous "suggestions" or petty arguments which are grounded in bad faith assumptions or unnecessary buro/politics. I've just looked at the stats, and I could have said "it seems those notifications were predominantly (a two to one ratio) to supporters of secret voting" to the user who notified a batch on 25 October 2010. But that's an unhelpful way of thinking and even more unhelpful thing to say. I think sending out the 43 notifications that I did from one particular batch was more useful to the project. Thanks for the note and list, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. If I'd had more time yesterday, I'd have done them myself. Incidentally, there's a very useful add-on for Firefox, called Linky, that allows batch opening for links in separate tabs. It makes this kind of job trivially easy :)  Roger talk 05:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh...I'm going to have to download that and give it a spin. :D Cheers! Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've picked it up on my watchlist, but was wondering when you were going to get to me-- no need. On the other hand, I do have a lot of TPS, so might as well! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Sandy, I think I clicked 60 something names from the RfC/U (as much as the browser could fit) and then by the end of going through them, I took a break. It's a bit weird you weren't picked up in that list, though looking at the above, it's a bit weird that a few others were not picked up in the list too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem-- I could see you were working through them, and initially thought there was no need to notify me, then rethought that a notification on my talk might bring in lots of TPS. (Although I'm wondering why this is being rehashed-- a necessary evil I 'spose :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who need to be notified that were missed in both batches

  1. ? User talk:AGK
  2. ? User talk:AlexandrDmitri
  3. ? User talk:Basket of Puppies
  4. ? User talk:Beetstra
  5. ? User talk:Captain panda
  6. ? User talk:Casliber
  7. ? User talk:Charles Matthews
  8. ? User talk:Chick Bowen
  9. ? User talk:Cs32en
  10. ? User talk:Cybercobra
  11. ? User talk:Deserted Cities
  12. ? User talk:DGG
  13. ? User talk:Escape Artist Swyer
  14. ? User talk:Île_flottant
  15. ? User talk:Jayron32
  16. ? User talk:John Vandenberg
  17. ? User talk:Jonathunder
  18. ? User talk:JoshuaZ
  19. ? User talk:Karanacs
  20. ? User talk:Keegan
  21. ? User talk:KrebMarkt
  22. ? User talk:Lambiam
  23. ? User talk:Lankiveil
  24. ? User talk:LessHeard vanU
  25. ? User talk:M2Ys4U
  26. Arbitrator User talk:Mailer diablo
  27. ? User talk:Malleus_Fatuorum
  28. ? User talk:Master&Expert
  29. ? User talk:MZMcBride
  30. Arbitrator User talk:Newyorkbrad
    (I'm aware of it, thanks.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. ? User talk:Nmajdan
  32. ? User talk:Offliner
  33. ? User talk:Patar knight
  34. ? User talk:Privatemusings
  35. ? User talk:Quantling
  36. ? User talk:Radeksz
  37. ? User talk:RexxS
  38. ? User talk:RL0919
  39. ? User talk:RP459
  40. ? User talk:Sam Blacketer
    ? User talk:SandyGeorgia  Done
  41. Arbitrator User talk:SirFozzie
  42. ? User talk:Ultraexactzz
  43. ? User talk:Valley2city
  44. ? User talk:Vecrumba
All the names struck through above have now been notified,  Roger talk 05:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Roger, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arb report Nov 1

NCM, is your arb report live yet? I remember on a past arb report, you went into quite a timeline about how quickly the arbs acted; it would be helpful if you did similar here.

After the article spent more than 12 hours on the main page, Raul654, the Featured Article Director, replaced the main page with another article after being alerted of these concerns.

This makes it sound like Raul left it on the mainpage for 12 hours: could you instead trace the timeline of how fast he pulled it after I first learned of it on ANI and notified him? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I first learned of it at ANI at 10:45 UTC, investigated, posted to Raul at 11:15, and you have the time for when he pulled it-- but it should be stated that Raul could not have been aware until 11:15 UTC earliest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy. It should be live now. I've only just returned home; it's my understanding that HaeB addressed this during my absence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Pending

[17] Will definitely respond to this, but it will have to wait for a bit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Collins RfC

BWilkins was in the process of closing this, as you will see if you look at User talk:Gavin.collins. I think you should undo your close. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, see Gavin's talkpage and mine ... spank him, and get it over with. My head hurts. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I was thinking of making the suggestion that it be hand-balled to the Arbitration Committee (it's not got any cases anyway), but the Community would still be doomed to the agony (and so would arbs). A ban discussion may be a less painful option if it's not hijacked by the subject. I'm seriously contemplating just making the proposal to the Community directly.... It seems the parties are onto this so I'll just wait until they are ready. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC) 14:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mick ANI

You said you pasted commented when you moved the discussion, so where's mine? Gigs (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Gigs; John and GoodDay had already commented. So I took yours, Lar's, and Bovlb's comment and pasted it, but I must've overwritten the first comment with the 'copied from the original discussion' sign [18]. :( I've pasted your reply now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I figured it was unintentional. Gigs (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical interpretations

Could I ask which arbitrators you are referring to here? No need for a lengthy discussion here, just trying to clarify if I should respond there or not. Carcharoth (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this may not be the most helpful choice of phrasing: [19] ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've responded to the 'nonsensical' matter elsewhere (it should be clear that I object to my interpretation of WP:CANVASS being described as nonsensical, but if that is your opinion, fair enough). What I am more concerned about (and I didn't really notice this properly before) was where you said arbitrators [...] may want to reconsider whether they can afford to do so. I may be being really obtuse here, but what did you mean by that? Were you referring to more arbitrators than just me? I've tried several times to work out what you might have meant by that, but rather than come up with a nonsensical interpretation, I'll wait and see if you can clarify what you meant by that statement. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Lar, maybe you could move your comment to a new section?[reply]

AN/I

[20] Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have remarkable difficulty following instructions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TY TY TY for your help on SRQ! Bowing to your expertise.  :-D Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I need to say " You are the Bomb! You have covered all the bases in an amazing manner, Thanks again! !!!!DocOfSoc (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom report

I don't want to get into a barney with you every week. I was well aware of my own conflict of interest, which is why I avoided editing it for so long, and simply blanked it for you to correct. Now I've done what you should have done (ie your job of being an objective reporter rather than some tabloid hack). I would say I'm not proud of having to do it, but you left me with no choice. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

ANI Revision

Why did you revise the archiving of a section that has been actively trolled for over an hour now? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, just seen your further post. Thanks for removing the Zsfgseg thread again. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time...

Hi, you work on the banning policy. If you have a moment, along with any lurkers, would you pop over there and help out me and Franamax with a question we have? The policy has been changed and we are looking to see where the consensus was for the change and if we can change it back to protect editors who have to deal with sock puppets. Thanks for you time, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belated

BTW - thanks for your support on that. Hopefully it is finally in a place like that huge warehouse in the very final scene of Raiders. :> Doc talk 09:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010


Your question

I'm happy to answer it, but I think it's supposed to be on this page [21] with all the others. looks better if you move it rather then me.  Giacomo  15:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can move it if there are no longer arbitrary limits on the questions anymore. My understanding is that the self-appointed coordinators are going to cause drama if the questions are not within their unilaterally decided word limits on questions. (I'm not even sure it's a coordinator-wide thing as much as it is a Tony1-thing, but there you have it). In fact, I think there's also some limit on the number of questions we're allowed to ask on that page. Still, I'm not likely to respond well if they interfere. To at least partially resolve that before it became an issue, I'm told that they won't interfere with questions raised on the talk page. I've already pushed to get a few of the major things addressed for this election, but if I started on every single thing I'm concerned by, then Randy's ghost (or mouthpiece) is going to turn up complaining about how biassed and "anti-AC" I must be and how "ant-AC-coordinator" I must be. Of course, I couldn't care less about that sort of frivolous crap, but I don't want the attention to shift away from the candidates during this period. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realy don't mind where it goes, I am never fussed by the "right place" - I just did not want people to miss it or you tp sudenly realise it was in the wrong place, perhpaps it's not and everyone else is wrong. I don't supose itv matters a lot. I'll answer it where it is.  Giacomo  15:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion for WP:ARBCOM

The approach you suggest here is interesting, but I think it may be oriented too heavily towards editors already familiar with ArbCom jargon. A newer editor who gets pointed at a subcommittee, for example, is unlikely to know to look under the mailing list name for information about it; indeed, nobody but the most experienced editors is likely to know the names of the mailing lists used by the subcommittees to begin with.

I'd actually prefer to condense the page the other way—by rolling the mailing list information in with the subcommittees—but this would probably still be confusing, since there isn't a one-to-one correlation between the two.

So I think that, for the time being, we're stuck with listing subcommittees and mailing lists separately. I'm going to play around with making the mailing list section slightly more compact, but I suspect that's going to be the limit of what we can do at the moment. Kirill [talk] [prof] 00:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject India Newsletter Volume V, Issue no. 2 - November 2010

English WikiProject News

After a missed issue, the WP:IND newsletter is back on track to being a regular bimonthly feature. The Indian WikiProject has seen plenty of online and off-line action, both in English as well as other Indian languages, and we now have a bigger, better format that intends to feature content and news from the English as well as other Indian language Wikipedias.

Reaching out to Indians has been the theme of the Indian Wikiproject over the past couple of months, aiming to involve a greater number of Indians in editing both the English and Indian language Wikipedias. To this end, efforts to set up the Indian chapter of Wikimedia have moved into their final stages, and registration of the society is currently pending. An effort is underway to push for "WikiMarathons" at meetups, where attendees will be encouraged to edit the English and/or Indian language Wikipedias. This is intended to popularise Wikipedia editing among the general public. In addition, a bot to post DYK's from the Indian Wikiproject to Twitter was created and launched by User:Logicwiki.


What's New?

Regrettably, the number of Featured Articles has dropped from 63 in June to 58 at the end of October 2010. Several FAs came up for review and were delisted, while Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India was saved. Meanwhile, Chalukya Dynasty appeared on the main page on July 9, 2010. Hearteningly, the number of Good Articles increased from 130 to 136 during the same period, while the number of Featured Lists remained constant at 16.

The source code for the Article Alert Bot is now available and the bot itself is expected to be up and running very shortly. This means that article alerts for the Indian Wikiproject will again be available, enabling editors to easily keep track of developments in respect of reviews, nominations, deletions etc.

The date change vandal mentioned briefly in the previous issue made a reappearance when the range block on his IP range expired in September. Consequently the block was extended till September 2011.

In October there was a heated discussion in the India project noticeboard regarding the copyright status of the Indian party symbols. The discussion was triggered by the deletion of Wiki San Roze's party symbol images by Hammersoft as copyright violations. No resolution was reached, partly because of our inability to explain to Hammersoft how election symbols in India differ from party logos. Comments are requested from anyone with a background in Indian copyright law to clarify this issue.

Complete To Do List
Complete To Do List
News from Indian-language Wikipedias
  • The Bengali Wikisource, which contains the literary works of many prominent writers of Bengali language including Rabindranath Tagore, has crossed the 5,000 pages milestone. According to List of Wikisource page, Bengali Wikisource is now at rank 21 among 56 Wikisource based on number of content pages.
The Tamil Wikipedia stall at the World Classical Tamil Conference 2010 in Coimbatore in June 2010.
Jimmy Wales introduces the Malayalam Wikipedia CD of 500 selected articles during his key note address at Wikimania 2010 at Gdansk.
  • The Hindi Wikipedia and its sister wiki projects migrated to the new vector interface on September 1, 2010. In addition, Hindi is the first (and so far the only) Indian language to be incorporated into the WikiBhasha translation and contribution toolkit developed by Microsoft Research.


Community news
The first meetup in Delhi on 22 September 2010.

Mumbai and Delhi held their first meetups in September, where Wikimedia Board members Barry Newstead and Bishakha Datta met up with Wikipedians and other interested members of the public in these cities. A month later, Hyderabad also held its first meetup.

Arun Ram, Shiju Alex and Barry Newstead releasing the Wikimedia India community newsletter at the nineteenth Bangalore meetup on 24 September 2010.

Wikipedians in Bangalore continued their tradition of meeting up regularly at the Centre for Internet and Society, with the nineteenth meetup in September featuring Barry and Bishaka as attendees, and marking the release of the community newsletter. Along with Delhi and Mumbai, Bangalore is reported to be one of the three cities in contention for the Indian office of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Jimmy Wales speech at the Mumbai Wikipedia Meetup #3 on 31 October 2010. Intro by User:Bishdatta & User:Arunram. (Recorded by User:AshLin.)

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales had an interaction with Wikipedians followed by a presentation to members of the public at the third Wikipedia meetup in Mumbai on October 31, 2010.

The first Wikimarathon, where Wikipedians and members of the public were encouraged to contribute to Wikimedia projects onsite, was held simultaneously at the meetups in Bangalore and Chennai on November 14, 2010. Wikipedians in Delhi also held a meetup the same day.

The Malayalam Wikipedia held several academies in different parts of Kerala over the past few months.

Wikimedia Foundation board member Bishakha Datta and Indian Wikipedian Srinivas Gunta co-authored a panel presentation at Wikimania 2010 on the Wikimedia Asia Project.

Current proposals and discussions
  • This interesting discussion on the quality of editing in India-related articles has been underway for on the noticeboard a few days. Feel free to join in and express your opinion.

If you've just joined, add your name to the Members section of Wikipedia: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. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Signed...

SBC-YPR, Sodabottle (Editors)

Tinucherian (Distributor)


This newsletter incorporates content from the WikiMedia India Community Newsletter, September 2010.

Looking forward to more contributions from you!
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 User:Od Mishehu AWB, operated by עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Arbcom questions

Greetings, Ncmvocalist. I think you may have inadvertently placed your questions on the main candidate talkpages of some nominees instead of their questions talkpage; your questions are showing up as candidates at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Discussion. It would be best to keep the location consistent so that voters know where to look. Regards, Skomorokh 15:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Skomorokh; I think I've fixed it now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query in your guide to the elections

You seemed to be wondering if I'd been involved in an arbcom workshop (or did I read this wrong). The only one I was involved in was Ottava Rima. Not, I think that it's much help, although I would modestly claim some credit for identifying the issue behind this finding [22]. I don't think you and I have ever worked together in hashing something out. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that does help a bit (I was generally impressed with your proposals), but the issues in that case were quite limited when compared to some of the others I'm thinking about. Does that help? It was in that way this nomination was earlier than I'd have preferred. That said, I guess it doesn't mean it's altogether too late to resolve things like that after you have been elected...I suspect we will be communicating more than we do now in any event. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Because you commented at AN/I

You wrote here So please see here. I would really like to get this resolved. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a topic ban that would not allow process discussions regarding the banned issue

Hello Ncmv. Advice needed. There is a currently-open case at AE where topic-banned editors have been filing a lot of issues and even joined in an RFC/U that is about a person active in their forbidden topic. This seems undesirable. A narrowing of the ban is possible (whatever wording the closing admins decide, via discretionary sanctions) but they should word it carefully. Here is one ban that I found from a previous case:

Per this AE request, a topic ban was issued (in an unrelated case) to an editor I will call XXXX here. I would like to know if you consider this to be a good wording to use.

XXXX is indefinitely restricted from editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. (Exceptions listed below) XXXX is restricted from editing any namespaces to begin, or comment on physics related content, disputes stemming from physics-related content, meta-discussion or meta-content (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general, or physics in particular, or the recognition of minority views. As always, there a recognized exception for Arbitration proceedings concerning XXXX (up to the discretion of the Arbitration Committee and appropriate clerks), as well as as the natural exception for responding to administrative threads seeking to sanction XXXX, as well as participating in Arbitration related elections and election discussions... Imposed by Admin YYYY 07:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you think? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This goes back to the exact meaning of the topic ban. When XXXX was banned from a topic (eg; physics articles), that means they are not permitted to make any edit about physics articles on Wikipedia. This means if another editor (YYYY) who has worked in physics articles is at the centre of a dispute (and it is being resolved in a RfC/U), XXXX can NOT endorse or make a view that relates to physics articles (including what editor YYYY has done/said in relation to physics articles). What editor XXXX CAN do is make a view about his interactions in matters unrelated to physics.
So to elaborate on a possible scenario, an RfC/U on YYYY concerns his failure to communicate succinctly and the issue that is being caused by long screeds of text. XXXX and YYYY may have only twice encountered one another on physics-related articles and they never had a dispute - in fact, they agreed with one another on both occasions. XXXX might want to make a comment that his interaction with YYYY on movie-related articles was significant and that he found that YYYY was not posting succinctly and it was difficult to communicate in any way due to the comments he made, each of which were 7000 words in length. That's OK. Alternatively, if their interaction on physics articles may have been a source of disagreement, but they often were OK with one another on movie articles because YYYY was communicating succinctly and without the long screeds of text, XXXX might want to mention about the succinct communication in the movie topic. The topic ban on XXXX therefore means that he can make a view about the movie-related articles bit, or endorse someone else's view if it deals with some other topic (eg; tourism related articles). So, if someone's view deals with all 3 topics (physics, movies and tourism), XXXX can endorse that view so long as he specifies that he is only endorsing the parts in relation to movies and tourism and that he is not in a position where he can/should comment on the other parts of the view. It's to enable such a situation that the topic ban is kept open. It should be noted that in keeping this part of the topic ban open, it is a privilege, and misusing that privilege may lead to the need to revoke it.
That is, if XXXX has violated the topic ban by responding to a RfC/U which focuses exclusively on conduct in the physics topic area (and XXXX has not addressed specific conduct outside of that physics area - such as a diff in the movie topic), then there might be a need to revoke that user's ability to comment/endorse in such RfC/Us. It's a very fine line, but XXXX needs to give sufficient thought to the letter and spirit of their binding topic ban (and failing to do so is evidence that they may not be trusted enough to adhere to it).
Getting back to what you have actually asked - I see a couple of grey areas under that particular wording so I'd suggest this alternative:

"The following restrictions and exceptions are to be read together and considered a single restriction. (1) XXXX is restricted from making any edit or comment on physics-related content (PRC). This includes (but is not limited to) Wikipedia processes relating to PRC, any disputes that relate to PRC, dispute resolution concerning editors who have worked on PRC, and any meta-discussion or meta-content (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general. (2) XXXX is indefinitely restricted from editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. (3) As always, there a recognized exception for Arbitration proceedings concerning XXXX (up to the discretion of the Arbitration Committee and appropriate clerks), as well as as the natural exception for responding to administrative threads seeking to sanction XXXX, as well as participating in Arbitration related elections and election discussions."

The above was a bit complex and might appear as a bit of a ramble; if you have any questions, let me know. Hope it helps. :) Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this really is a mere restatement of the existing topic ban...but it adds four things to make it narrower: (a) any disputes that relate to PRC (before this, it was disputes that relate to PRC except for specific circumstances which would warrant comment), (b) dispute resolution concerning editors who have worked on PRC (before this, it was dispute resolution concerning editors conduct in relation to PRC as I have described above), (c) any meta-discussion or meta-content (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general (before this, it was meta discussion and content related to PRC - if it was meta discussion exclusively limited to a specific area of science that is not physics, it would have been OK) and (d) indefinitely restricted from editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. 15:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I see there is more to this RFC/U issue than first appeared. Looking at WP:RESTRICT, I see many topic bans listed (that are stricter than just article+talk) but none that leap out as being the ideal wording. Perhaps the ban should be in point form and just itemize a lot of things that shouldn't be done. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Talkback

Hello, Ncmvocalist. You have new messages at Eagles247's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Ncmvocalist. You have new messages at Eraserhead1's talk page.
Message added 21:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thank You

Thanks for your comments on my WQA, I have gotten kind of fed up with the idiots and even more fed up that no action was taken. Boosted my morale a little that it was at least taken seriously. Anyway, I've been so fed up I went and changed my username. Thanks for your help. Regards, Justin aka Wee Curry Monster talk 09:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy's charts

I undid your changes to my chart, but I did it by making your chart a second version. My methodology differs from yours but I think there's value in presenting both charts. If I messed up your thinking, please feel free to crisp up the explanations at the lead into the charts I put in. Hopefully having two charts will satisfy your desire to have a different methodology. Actually since we started from Sandy's I guess A) she has final say and b) we are missing some guide writers so it's not complete anyway... See also what Elonka's up to. ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with counting neutral as wrong is that assumptions about "not commenting" are a bit tricky and really don't form a complete analysis. Obviously in my case, I had a lot of 'no comments' or 'undecided' at the time of writing up my guide, and there were a number of reasons for being undecided - eg; complicated considerations that need more thought, not enough interest in those candidates, or just not enough time to look at everything that needs to be looked into(there are more reasons, but I'm trying to be succinct). That said, having had a brief read, I suppose I can't argue with the lead ins you've written. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of different ways to slice this. I just didn't think it was a good idea to lose my take but I also didn't want to lose the work you did, so I split... I think it works. The intros needed work anyway... apparently Tony1 was confused and we can't have that. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are out of line

Enough said Polargeo (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded, and no, I don't agree with your characterisation, but like I initially said, each to their own. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkbacks

Hello, Ncmvocalist. You have new messages at DigitalC's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DigitalC (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much for your kind words and support in your voter guide, as well as for your other thoughtful observations. They are appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

More on Signpost

Please could you include a statement in Signpost about ArbCom lifting my topic ban early without being asked? There's probably no need to mention your own personal participation in that process.[23] Just for reference this is what I sent you in an email:

If meatpuppetry has happened and the real life identities of a number of users editing on the behalf of banned users have been determined beyond a reasonable doubt, the identities of these users cannot possibly be discussed on wikipedia without breaking the outing policy.

That meatpuppetry has now been publicly acknowledged by ArbCom. Perhaps you might consider apologizing to me in the circumstances, Mathsci (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Here's what I'd said: I absolutely agree that living up to his promise to not make the topic/article a focus of his editing will help (that's part of the reason his conduct deteriorated to begin with), but there is obviously some bad blood - if there wasn't, the opinions at Occam's appeal would be somewhat more uniform in the circumstances, and there's obviously a concern that editors are being treated differently on the basis of hushed up emails....Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC) And you want me to consider apologizing to you for pointing out the fact that there was an active concern appearing on the arbitration pages about hushed up emails? I think your suggestion is remarkably absurd. You responded to my statement by sending me an email (the content of which you've quoted above, and sent under the subject line "Why some emails are private"). I'm not sure why you thought it was appropriate to send me that content by email; it merely restates a principle of outing policy and quite obviously contains no private details. It appears to me that this may be the second misunderstanding that has been created as a result of your emails; I appreciate that the misunderstanding created by the emails between you and arbitrators may not have been entirely avoidable, however, the possible misunderstanding caused by your email to me was, in my opinion, entirely avoidable, had you chose to post that content here. Perhaps you should consider taking more active steps to avoid creating further misunderstandings in relation to emails you have sent. In relation to your other request, The Signpost would at least include a mention of the fact that your topic ban has been lifted without you making a specific request to this effect. However, it wouldn't say that it was lifted "early", given that your restriction was indefinite and had no end date (so arguably, whether it was early or late is neither here nor there given it was not a definite duration). Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:ARBR&I, in particular the section on REVIEW OF TOPIC BANS. It contains an unambiguous sentence: ""Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and further reviews will take place no more frequently than every six months thereafter." So, yes, in this case the topic ban was lifted early. I hope that you will be more careful in future. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You either applied to have your topic ban removed or you didn't; you say you didn't, in which case ArbCom acted independently of an application to review the topic ban. If you did, that's when that clause applies. In other words, your topic ban was not removed early unless you actually applied earlier than when you were allowed to. I suggest you take your own advice, for your own sake. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrators have at no stage suggested that they had been contacted privately about the topic ban being lifted. Are you now suggesting that they have been lying? I hope I'm getting the drift of your remarks correct. Mathsci (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are incorrect. At the top of this thread, you said you did not ask to have your topic ban lifted; if that is the case, then there was nothing 'early' about this. However, if you did in fact make an application to have your topic ban lifted, then that's when there is any room for things happening 'early' - see below.

The drift of my remarks is that you are for one reason or another refusing to read the provision as a whole. That is, you have cherry picked a single sentence from Wikipedia:ARBR&I#Reviewof topic-bans without reading the very first sentence of the same section: Editors topic banned under this remedy may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors.

  • This provision is about applications made by (or on behalf of) Mikemikev/Captain Occam/David Kane/Mathsci; such applications cannot be made more than once ever 6 months, starting February 2011.
  • This provision does not specify the duration of your (or Captain Occam's, or David Kane's, or Mikemikev's) topic ban.

In other words, if you made an application in October to have your topic ban lifted, and after considering the application, ArbCom passed a motion in November lifting the topic ban, then that means that (1) you have not complied with that provision of the ruling as you applied in October 2010 - you cannot directly apply before February 2011, and (2) ArbCom have not complied with that provision - they said that the earliest they would officially review your application is in February 2011.

I hope that makes things clear, but if you continue to encounter difficulty in understanding the meaning of what I have said, I believe that arbitrator Roger Davies can provide you with further assistance in understanding the meaning. This is not the first time, in this month, that the party to an arbitration case has had difficulty in interpreting the duration of their ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

WP:AN

For the sake of completeness, I am notifying you about a discussion on WP:AN involving you. It's here. Rodhullandemu 00:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Members

After this: WP:AN#Is there a way of finding out when an account was created? I've done some clearing up - see the talk page. See also [24]. I've stopped now, it's not worth my time. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Appreciated muchly (including this note - which saves me a lot of time trying to figure out what was going on while I was away)!! :) I think I started clearing some of it aeons ago, but then I came to the same conclusion as you did and stopped. Cheers again, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Unblock

Tbank you for the interest, yes, this is no longer a matter of urgency (although it is still a matter of some worry for me...). Out of curiosity, how would you interpret the topic ban? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working on a page

I am trying to come up with more ideas on how I could rewrite and restructure the page at Abandonment. If you have any suggestions, please PM me and I will begin research to bring the page up from its current meager state. Wanderson9 (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC note

Hello! Note that certifier Mjroots' inside view in the outside view section was done in good faith and in invokation of WP:IAR; see here. HeyMid (contribs) 10:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your deletion. I did state that I intended to invoke IAR on the talk page several hours before I made my statement. MMN has replied to my views on the talk page so presumable he is happy with the situation. Mjroots (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a deletion, but rather a "formatting". HeyMid (contribs) 13:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my post on Mjroots talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arb report 10 Jan 2011

Oh no, you don't! --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned several times about your edit-warring on Signpost articles (HaeB warned you more than once) - including your editwarring on the arbitration report. This is your final warning; knock it off. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to let the report turn into a circus as a result of your childishness, so if you continue to edit in the way that you have been, you might as well find another report that you can actually make useful or quality contributions to. I'd so far been working under the assumption that you are ready to work together after seeing your note last year in the Newsroom; so far, you have been furthering an impression that suggests otherwise which has prompted me to raise this with HaeB. I don't believe you have taken the time to think about what you have done or the fact that you need to get your act together. I'll be waiting to hear from HaeB as to if and when that you do. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This should be added to the list of lamest edit wars. In order to avoid you both getting blocked due to your egos, I would highly suggest you simply remove the credit line to end this ridiculousness. --slakr\ talk / 11:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ncmvocalist&oldid=406860713"