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
m Reverted edits by Mathsci (talk) to last version by Ncmvocalist
→‎Mathsci: new section
Line 876: Line 876:
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' &middot; [[Wikipedia:Signpost/Single|Single-page]] &middot; [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] &middot; [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 01:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)</div>
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' &middot; [[Wikipedia:Signpost/Single|Single-page]] &middot; [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] &middot; [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 01:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0126 -->
<!-- EdwardsBot 0126 -->

== Mathsci ==

Ncm - you and I don't always see eye to eye, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mathsci&curid=30078048&diff=421364874&oldid=421364521 this] we can agree on. I'm just noting this in case you wanted a token of acknowledgment and support from an odd corner of the project. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 20:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:08, 29 March 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]

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]

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]


The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

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

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]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

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]

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]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

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: 9 August 2010

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]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

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 [5]! 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]

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]

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

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

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]

WQA

Change of target [6]. 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 ([7])...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]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

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

[8] 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]

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

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]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Your question

I'm happy to answer it, but I think it's supposed to be on this page [9] 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]

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 [10]. 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

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

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.[11] 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

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 [12]. 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]
  • Gosh, I'm really trembling in my boots (not). You rattle your sabre at someone else, please. I don't need you to tell me Haeb is equally unimpressed with both of us. I hope he asks us both to leave Arb Report. I'm outta here. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:02, 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]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg
Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Good close

Good close, Ncmvocalist, over at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MickMacNee. Nice work. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Weekly arbitration report

If you and Ohconfucius cannot stop edit-warring on the arbitration report every week and bickering at each other in edit summaries, I am going to ask the editors to reassign the page away from both of you. This situation is becoming embarrassing for everyone. I know that you are only one of the two people involved, but this needs to stop. I hope that it can. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just two people; it is an issue concerning two participants of the date-delinking case (by the name of Tony1 and Ohconfucius, who are known to have had frequent personal interaction with at least one of your colleagues). They have repeatedly engaged in the same agenda-driven behavior that you leniently sanctioned them for the first time with respect to date delinking. The conduct concerns include gross personal attacks, incivility, gross and unjustified assumptions of bad faith, frivolous accusations, harassment, edit-warring, deliberate and belligerant misuse of MoS, misuse of edit-summaries, and general battleground behavior. What they have brought to this part of The Signpost is not something you should be so ready to ignore, least of all when you made a similar mistake in the past which has enabled this disruption. Lord Roem is now also contributing to the arbitration report and the fact that we are managing to collaborate without these sorts of issues suggests that ArbCom need to soon review those restrictions on those particular date delinking case participants. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikiquette alerts

To answer your question more directly, I have not followed up with contacting the functionaries after being told to do so. So far, I have only contacted a clerk. Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your candour. Based on what I already said, I think you have an idea of my response. There are three ways from here - the first is to submit the evidence to the functionaries or ArbCom (...like...now), the second is to hold onto the evidence (for a later time), and the third is to never submit the evidence and to focus on the issues that you are able to focus on, be it harassment, potential failure to comply with notability requirements, etc. What is important in ANY of the scenarios is that you would need to avoid making further suggestions of that sort on-wiki - for the very reason you have mentioned (sensitivity issue) as well as the obvious validity issue. If there is sufficient evidence that the user is not fully complying with the relevant conditions/policies, the functionary should be able to act to resolve the issue. On another point, if he says something or does something which seems to support the suggestion you've made earlier, that would also need to be forwarded or kept off-wiki. Directly agreeing to that at the WQA, and complying with it, would obviously be ideal as it prevents him from reasonably escalating this particular issue. Ncmvocalist 13:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. The user has a history of ignoring consensus and engaging in tendentious editing, so 1 and 2 are my only options, with 1 preferred. The WQA report was simply a way for the user to try and avoid scrutiny. Viriditas (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

Hi Ncm. I see you tweaked some of my recent edits to this policy page. The tweaks were good, and I don't want to drastically alter the page any more, so I wonder if you'd like to help write a new version of the page? I've started Wikipedia:Dispute resolution/Draft, so that anybody who's interested in formulating a new version of the page can make edits without worrying about disrupting the policy page. AGK [•] 13:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure AGK. Does the draft need to be updated to include the tweaks? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I think I copied over a version from after your tweaks, yeah; I'll check now if I didn't and update the draft as needed. What problems do you think there are with the current policy page? I can't put my finger on anything that's obviously missing, but it just doesn't seem to work as it stands. AGK [•] 16:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R3ap3R.inc

This user is claiming in his unblock request that you've given him advice via IRC to prolong an edit war. Since he's being a little obtuse with the details, perhaps you can shed some light on the conversation you had and the advice you gave him? If I'm missing something extenuating that may help, I'd love to know. Kuru (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a frivolous claim for him to be making. When R3ap3r.inc said that he was engaged in an edit war on the CAPTCHA article, I specifically advised him to disengage from that. After he claimed that his insertion of well-referenced content was being reverted, he was told that it would obviously not look good if he was going to unblocked for the username issue but then needed to be reblocked for edit-warring. I think everyone understood the meaning of both responses; I'm not sure how anyone would somehow assume that it meant that an editor was allowed to continue edit-warring. He also indicated he would be warning the other party to the edit war but he didn't indicate that he would continue reverting - had he done the latter, an unblock would not have been granted at the time at which it was (as the block would obviously be preventing something in that case). I note that Tim also had access to the discussion (though I'm not sure if he ended up reading it). Nothing extenuating about it in my view; I see no reason for an unblock to be granted at this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the ruling

... bring more verbose works also (i.e. it doesn't give the impression that the opposite of the ruling is true). I went in with scissors rather than a pen with an eye to keeping things brief as you usually do; but the more detailed explanation also work. I'd have thought it gave a bit too much prominence to a minor part of the decision, though, wouldn't you? — Coren (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why it is so prominent is because this group has been specifically singled out in this particular topic in this particular decision. That it wasn't mentioned in the header does not in itself indicate that it is minor, I think, particularly when it does not seem to happen very often in recent arb cases (if I'm not totally mistaken). You understand me well in regards to the scissors, but given the amount of detail for the Oldest Persons WikiProject proposal, it seems misleading if I am too vague in relation to this group and ruling about COI (which is what my edit summary gets at). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's quite right— the only reason the group was singled out is because it had been raised specifically in evidence and during workshop and not because of specific relative importance. Nevertheless, that falls squarely within fabled "editorial discretion" as long as it doesn't leave the wrong impression (which the current version clearly doesn't). — Coren (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that's not quite right, perhaps something needs to be done to make it right because I'm not the one leaving the wrong impression. The first finding suggests there are a number of allegations of conflicts of interests; the next two findings manage to exclusively single out this particular group, yet in stark contrast, made vague and unspecific references to other affiliated groups that have been mentioned in evidence (that is, without naming those groups or singling those groups out in an identical fashion). So if there is no specific relative importance, I would think that those groups would be treated in the same way or that none of the groups would be singled out exclusively - particularly as more than one group has been raised in evidence and workshop (as far as the longevity COI disputes are concerned). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Help needed

Back in December, you were one of the people who supported User:QuackGuru when a site ban for disruption and POV pushing was proposed. There are once again serious disputes involving this editor. Please consider helping to resolve the current dispute at Talk:Chiropractic. I am hoping that since you are one of the few editors on record as supporting his involvement, that he will be inclined to listen to what you have to say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Bidgee

Hi Ncmvocalist. I know I've seen you at RfC's before, which I normally read and don't comment on. As such, I'm not quite as confident on the procedure. In your opinion, has the RfC on Bidgee met the minimum requirements of an RfC? WormTT 09:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as procedure, I've looked at it and so long as a part of it is shifted to the RfC/U page, it does seem to meet minimum requirements (though the presentation is a bit shoddy) - see what I wrote here to understand what I mean. And, obviously, the question of whether it was necessary to escalate to RfC/U or whether it is going to go very far is a question for others to decide in the views they express/endorse in the RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at that. Also on a procedural note, if I get agreement from the certifiers for my proposal (which effectively involes me leaving a note for Bidgee), would there be any issue with closing, since editors have commented? WormTT 14:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There still would an issue if the commenting editors disagree - if they think there are other issues that bring the certifiers own conduct into question or the involved users approach to the dispute into question (which they clearly do), then they are probably not going to endorse that note; I imagine they would think the note suggests the issue is with Bidgee alone and is therefore misleading (they were of the view that issues extended beyond the one user).
It can't really be closed early unless the users come to an agreement on the summary (which might include sending a note that you propose), or unless the users agree to close the RfC/U without a summary (but with whatever views/endorsements already provided) or unless it is being overtaken by some other dispute resolution (usually arbitration). The only other option is for certifiers to withdraw their certification which will allow the RfC/U to be deleted (but they can only exercise that option while the RfC/U remains open for comment - and obviously, a note can't refer to a RfC/U which is non-existent or deleted). Hope that helps (and more importantly, makes sense). :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does, and means tat I will be looking at this RfC differently, as something that will be going ahead. I'll have a think about what to do next, most probably offering an outside view. Thanks a lot for your help here. WormTT 15:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ncmvocalist. You have new messages at WP:ANI.
Message added 14:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I clarified the issues you have identified. I think you'll understand what i mean better now. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

I have replied to you at User_talk:Gigs#Comments_on_date_delinking_case_amendment Gigs (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Hm...

I was bold and changed the headline to read "three open cases" [13] to match the lead, but now I think I see what you were driving at. Perhaps it should be: "New case opened after interim desysop last week; two other pending cases" ? Please amend or revert as you see fit. –xenotalk 15:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I came to the same conclusion - should have said "other". Still, it's well-after publication (now) and I don't have an issue with the current title, so it should be fine for this week. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Arb. request

Hi, I am just reading the arbitration request that involves Sandstein and User:Ludwigs2 to catch up on recent postings. I am just finishing up reading your posting about how you see things and got to the section that you have where the paragraph starts with "The Wild West is unavoidable while some admins put cowboy police hats on; the only thing that can be done is to address the inherent cause (and not just because of a sweeping rule which limits itself to a single a outcome).". There is more of course but this sentence should allow you to see where I am talking about. I thought with your comments about cowboys and police that you had been active in the WP:Town sheriff that is being set up for possibly turning it to the community to see if there is an consensus available to allow this to be tested by the community. When I went to look at the discussions there I didn't see your name any where but I also didn't go through the archives either. Anyways, I thought with what you said that maybe you would be interested in checking into the possible chance of a new policy to be tried. I am trying to get a wide view of editors to know about this WP:Town sheriff for the best inputs from a variety of different kinds of editors. I just thought you might be interested in checking this out. This is the work of Ludwigs2, his/her new baby (an idea that he has been floating to the community for a while). I'd be interested in your thoughts on this that is if you're interested in checking out the talk page and the main article policy being thought of here. If not interested, that's fine too. I hope I hear from you either way. :) Take care, and thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crohnie. I have read this and taken a brief look. Although I'm always on the look out for ideas which can help improve the system and project, I don't think that this one will do that (despite being well-intended in theory). I don't think it has much of a chance to be supported as a new policy either. It seems to be diluting different elements of what already exists on the project. The purposes of each of those elements are very specific and they are being lost in the dilution; in practice, I don't think that helps the project achieve its ultimate purpose (and a police role is an issue in itself). On another point, although it is true that often, behavior can interfere with consensus building, it can often be a symptom rather than a cause. So as ironic as it may sound, I think sometimes it is such behavior which is necessary to move the project towards that purpose, or, to protect aspects that may be dear to the project and its community (for example, it can often bring more eyes to an issue before it escalates to the point where a lot is unnecessarily and unfortunately lost). Hope some of that makes sense anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I am finding that I happen to agree with what you are saying too. If you haven't, read some of the talk page to see some of the behavior going on there. I think it will show that the behavior that was shown at AN that he got blocked for can be seen throughout the talk page of WP:Town sheriff. Of course if this arbcom case goes on to talk about behaviors, this might have to be brought into evidence to show a pattern. I am hoping though that everyone will calm down and close the case now that the AEBLOCK has been explained by both administrators and I think what they both say clarify what happened and that it won't happen again. I can hope for common sense to prevail. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 13:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Done!

A very manly man, just like you!

You have been awarded the Manliness Award for helping to construct a great encyclopedia.


Keep up the great work!


A Very Manly Man (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Suggestions?

Honestly, I know I handled this SmD incident badly. I was irritated at first by the persistent accusations and attacks in a fairly toxic editing environment. I attempted to disengage several times but was repeatedly provoked into further responses by things I probably should have ignored.

Other than a swift kick to the head, how would you recommend I handle similar situations in the future if I feel the desire to do something? Honestly, taking it to the user's talk page did not work at all, especially after the inflammatory responses, and SmD and I aren't the only hotheads on this project. SDY (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to reconsider what you are saying/typing before submitting it. If you can't be sensitive to the concerns expressed by someone else, just avoid responding altogether; it's not necessary to announce your disengagement before disengaging. If you had a concern with the user's conduct, you were right to take it to the user's talk page on the first count; however, your edit summary (and manner of communicating) on that first edit, as well as your second edit [14] (even though you self reverted on the third), as well as every other edit after that made it certain that it would not end well. What's the point of posting to the user talk if that's destined to be the outcome as a result of the way you worded it? What's the point in being offended if you think there are trolls responding in the initial discussion? Take a holistic review of your entire approach through this incident and consider how your edits can be interpreted by others (based on what you have seen from this incident) - consider your own position if some other editor acted like you in response to your edits (but instead of addressing you as a veteran admin, he addresses you as an editor who has been here since 2007); how would you respond? What changes (if any) would that editor need to make to his/her comments/acts so that the dispute could be resolved more amicably? I realise my response isn't as specific as might be desired, but I hope it helps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the further discussion at the alert page brought up an interesting essay, WP:BAIT. I allowed myself to be baited by SmD's "parting shots" every time he "closed" the discussion. Honestly, if he weren't an admin I would have ignored him and his provocations on the original talk page, but he never held anything approaching the "high ground" in that discussion. I agree that the reversions and persistence were inappropriate, but that's all I regret. I should have just taken it directly to WP:WQA after the initial reversion. SDY (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February has 28 days

You closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan. This has been very difficult for me to respond to, without responding in kind to some uncollegial comments. I have been working on my response. I went to the page to quote some comments, only to find you closed this on March 15.

It was initiated on February 15. Can I remind you that February only has 28 days. I think that means that 30 days is tomorrow.

Yes, I know that some participants may see it as unfair of me to leave comments on the 29th day. But, as I wrote above, I have found it difficult for me to respond to, without responding in kind to some uncollegial comments. I apologize to them. FWIW I would have no objection for the discussion staying open long enough for them to respond.

So could you please revert your closure? Geo Swan (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; however, I am concerned that despite being sent more than two messages regarding the status of your response, you failed to clarify that status or to seek assistance. I note that despite reverting this closure yourself, you have not yet submitted a response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC has been open for more than a week after Geo Swan's response. Should it be closed with the summary you drafted? Because there has been no opposition to the summary, I don't think it is necessary to notify all the participants to review and discuss it. Cunard (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

You have new messages (last change).

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert at WP:GS

Hi, I noticed that you reverted a format change I made to WP:GS. I'd appreciate your input about why you think this change was not a good idea at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions#Sanctions display format. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Al-Kindi

An editor has asked for a community reassessment of this article to see if it still meets the good article criteria. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Al-Kindi/1. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Hi Ncmvocalist,
I just wanted to tell you that how are new members approved. The system is strange as it does not match with the participating process of the others WikiProjects.Ankit Maity | Talk • contribs 12:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Mathsci

Ncm - you and I don't always see eye to eye, but this we can agree on. I'm just noting this in case you wanted a token of acknowledgment and support from an odd corner of the project. --Ludwigs2 20:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ncmvocalist&oldid=421371289"