Jump to content

User talk:Ncmvocalist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ncmvocalist (talk | contribs) at 15:15, 28 February 2010 (→CoM's block record: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ncmvocalist is, again, on wikibreak until further notice.

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]

My failure to AGF

Sikhye, Korean rice punch

Hello, Ncmvocalist, my visit here may look a bit (actually very even to myself) awkward due to our last interaction, but I come here to apologize to you for things regarding Neon White's case. I wish my comment here does not look sarcastic (with no such intention).

Ironically, when I saw your comment and others on George's talk page, I got to thank you for not saying things out of line. I was pretty beaten by the editors when I was down, you could've said more than that given our history but you did not. As seeing your comment and your good archive of this WQA case, I felt I misjudged you and your contribution to Wiki. Therefore I come to say sorry. Although I had a different point of view on the matter, I should've not said you in that way. As you said I failed to assume good faith on your intention, but that was not because of our first interaction on some user's unblocking (I almost forgot about it until you mentioned it, and the blocking admin is ironically George) as you assumed. Yes, I honestly was upset at you at that time because I felt your report seemed to divert the unfinished matter on Seicer regardless of your intention. But I acknowledge that if I say something disagreeable to others, I have to say it very carefully not hurting opponents. You said incorrect things but those would be interpreted as a counteraction after my comment to you. Anyway, I don't know we can get along well later due to the past, but I want to apologize to you for my bad attitude. Thanks, best wishes.--Caspian blue 22:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks, although often needed, have an unfortunate and horrible effect on anyone who is on the receiving end; the experience is not at all pleasant, and administrators and even arbitrators fail to truly comprehend the precise effect. I would not wish to compound the effect on anyone. I think we will still have disagreements even in the future, but hopefully, they can be resolved more amicably - if we can achieve that much, then that's certainly worth it. Thank you for the note, and apology accepted. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Have a nice weekend.--Caspian blue 01:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
American jujubes
What is floating in the rice punch, and how do we know it's safe to drink? :) I agree with Ncmvocalist's comment on blocking. The same can be said for warning templates, which we avoid using on people who understand them, and save for new users who will be hit the hardest in a battering of notices when they are already bewildered by our processes. This process helps make sure they feel entirely unwelcome. Cheerios! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The suspicious materials floated on sikhye are sliced jujube and pine nuts, Watson Those are for garnishes to look more delicious, not for M.O!--Caspian blue 04:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yummm! I love Jujube and pine nuts. :) Jujyfruits are good too! Did you know the green ones used to be mint, but now they are lime I think. (I'll have to check out what that kind of Jujube is. I'm not familiar with it.)ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WQA - Stale

Hi, I noticed that you had marked the Wikiquette Alert on Otterathome as "stale." I was wondering if you could please explain to me what this means in terms of what can/should now be done about the issue? Since it obviously wasn't addressed during the Wikiquette alert, is it appropriate to escalate it to ANI? Could you please help me figure out the appropriate procedure or direct me to someplace that would explain this to me further? Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The stale tag is to note that there have been no additional comments for a couple of or few days - this covers a broad number of possibilities (eg; nothing else can be done at this time, nobody is willing to deal with the issues raised at this time, everyone has moved past the issue for now, etc. etc. etc.) It is pretty difficult to demonstrate that an editor is engaging in complex conduct issues (like tendentious editing or gaming the system) at a venue like WQA. The best way to highlight problems of that nature (if they exist) is through RfC - article RfC to demonstrate how conduct is interfering with content issues, or WP:RfC/U which focusses on editor conduct and may be a useful avenue for you to try. If those steps also fail, or the conduct is becoming a serious problem, then the only alternative left is to request administrator intervention (ANI), or sometimes you may need to go further than that and request intervention from ArbCom in order to resolve the dispute - see also the later steps in dispute resolution. Does that help you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carnatic music

Somewhere on your user page, I saw something about you wanting to fix Carnatic music articles, but can't find it now. Anyways, I've been trying to create at least decent stubs for Carnatic musicians and was wondering if you'd be interested in collaborating on that. I typically try to sandbox a few at a time, if you've got any in mind, could you add there? Next couple of weeks, I'm going to be focusing on Indian women Test cricketers, and getting R. K. Narayan to GA/FA, but once both those tasks are done with, I hope to get back to Carnatic music. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 17:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. As and when time permits, I'll add some names there. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with you

Well said--Caspian blue 05:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carnatic music

By the way, what's going on with this? Was really ill for a long time after I was trying to help, and never got back into trying to help out here. I'd still be willing, though. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 16:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's sort of gone a bit quiet - they come back from time to time, but it gets dealt with accordingly. Any help you provide at any time is always appreciated. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stale tag

Hi, you've added a "stale" tag to my complaint re Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#user:Scientia est opulentia -- his allegations of my "destructive" editing. There's no definition on the project page of what this means. One person has thus far responded to my complaint, but no one has yet dealt with it. Does "stale" mean my problem is likely now to be shuffled into the archive without action? If so, do I raise the issue again if this user repeats his allegations? Thanks. LTSally (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The stale tag is to note that there have been no additional comments for a couple of or few days - this covers a broad number of possibilities (eg; nothing else can be done at this time, nobody is willing to deal with the issues raised at this time, everyone has moved past the issue for now, etc. etc. etc.) And yes, it also would suggest it may be archived by the bot without any further action. I haven't looked at this complaint beyond that because my on-wiki time is limited. But broadly, if a user repeats the behaviour that you are concerned by, you may need to raise it again or escalate it to the next step in dispute resolution. In more serious cases, you can take it directly to ANI, noting that when you tried WQA, it turned out stale. I'm sorry I can't help much more than that at this point; if I get a bit of time later, I'll take a look and hopefully narrow down the advice to something that suits your particular case. In any case, hope that is of some help. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. LTSally (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a revert

Scuro is alledging that Doc James reverted me.[1] I placed a tag on a section to resolve copied and pasted text, so Doc James summarised it in his own words and then removed the tag which was no longer necessary. That is not a revert, he resolved the issue, the tag I added was no longer needed so was removed. That is not a revert but what I would expect after copied and pasted text from source issue was resolved.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James cannot be sanctioned under the broad circumstances and context which really makes this moot. However, please understand what a revert is. Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors. Applying this, Doc James was entitled to attempt to resolve the concerns raised in the tag by altering the text in the body of the article. But Doc James reversed your action of placing that tag on the article - it's a revert for the purposes of 3RR, but even more importantly, a revert restriction. It is important to avoid situations where users subject to 1RR remove the tags because they felt they resolved the concern raised, when it's possible they haven't actually done so sufficiently. This potentially leads to an unnecessary edit-war, should the tag be reinstated by someone else. If he left the tag alone, this situation would be less likely, as either you (who placed the tag), or someone else who felt that the concern was resolved, could perform that part of the edit, and there probably would be no issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, this seems very broad but can sort of see the logic. ;) I just gave an example on the enforcement board which would be similar. Lets say someone adds a "citation needed" tag. Then Doc James or whoever then addresses the tag by adding a citation, then removes the no longer needed tag. Surely this would just be part of editing the article? I think Doc James will read the back and fro and hopefully be more cautious in these borderline cases of reverting. Thank you for explaining. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But even the citation-needed tag scenario could be problematic, because we assume that citations are attributable to the source given and that the source is reliable. If there was issue with the citation given when the tag was removed, then what's the next edit likely to be? Adding the content to address the concern is fine (even if it's a cite); but the tag issue would still remain in principle, even though it may practically seem obvious in some cases. Glad it was of some use anyway. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying and makes sense. I guess I think that decisions on borderline cases should be based on a case by case basis which is what the arbcom ruling says, "may be blocked" I think the wording is. I think Doc James should be more careful in future. Can I ask one qestion to save me filing a arbcom clarification request. What happens if established editors who were not involved in the arbcom start breaking rules on the ADHD pages? For example an established editor recently edit warred on ADHD controversies, used poor sourcing and so forth. Do I report such behaviour to arbcom or to admin noticeboard. I can't stand admin noticeboard as it is very uncivil environment and people jump to quick often wrong conclusions. Sorry for keeping typing to you lol. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Sure, I'll try my best to answer it. :) As infamous as ArbCom can be, many users don't really pay attention to cases or what's happened, so it may so happen that an established user (depending on the case) does not know that they are carelessly stepping around a potential bomb-site. Casually making them aware of a prior case may be a good wake-up call. But if that has no effect, then you'd typically need to treat them like any other established user on some other page - this may include going through dispute resolution and admin noticeboard discussions that other editors would be subject to, had they engaged in similar behaviour on any other page/topic, even if it is again. If they don't resolve the concerns themselves, and admin doesn't resolve the issue, then it'll either be the community or ArbCom to impose a remedy to resolve it. If too many users were engaging in problematic conduct on those pages, the community may impose a measure such as Obama probation or even individual sanctions. Alternatively, or more if the community is not doing anything about it, making an ArbCom request at that point would be useful for remedies (which may include those which I mentioned, or even broader discretionary sanctions if needed), as well as findings of fact. Lol, no problem - they're good questions, and you word them well; I just hope my answers make sense as most of them are somewhat broad or based on principle. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is very helpful information Ncmvocalist, thanks for taking the time to reply. I have a better idea now of what to do. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your cordial, constructive comments in the speed of light arbitration case. Not only are your alternate proposals useful, but your helpful and professional attitude is refreshing and much appreciated. Most sincerely, thank you. Vassyana (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is I who should be thanking you (and will do so properly at a better time); the pleasure was all mine. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No findings regarding Physchim62 on Speed of light

None of your findings pertain to Physchim62, who engaged in attribution of false positions to Brews ohare, threats, and incivility as outlined here. I find the failure bring any findings about this egregious behavior peculiar, and suggestive of an unhealthy avoidance of criticism of an editor with privileges. Perhaps you could explain? Brews ohare (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any suggestion of an "unhealthy avoidance of criticism" of any editor. But sure, I'll explain my position. You described your own opinion and made your concerns known through your proposal and comments here. However, there is a very simple reason why I have no proposals pertaining to your concerns - I am of the view that either Physchim62 did not engage in the "egregious behavior" you described (eg; no threats occurred), or that such behavior was not egregious enough to rise to the level of an arbitration finding. To elaborate on the latter point, the one issue you raised that I'd have possibly considered is the assertion Physchim62 made regarding your position (that you are advancing a position that most of physics was destroyed by the decision of the CGPM to fix the speed of light in SI units in 1983). However, even if it is indeed incorrect as you claim here, I'd still consider it a minor red herring in this case as (1) the rest of the warning was still justified, and (2) you inappropriately responded by suggesting that the user is Psycho62 - that is the egregious (uncivil and unseemly) behavior in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I regard the statement Should you continue to block up the talk pages and article histories of physics articles in order to promote your personal point of view as to what is physics – a point of view which has been roundly rejected as absurd by other editors – I shall have no choice but to ask for you to be banned from all such pages and its repetition and defense on Talk:Speed of light as clearly a threat. The blatant misrepresentation of my position as my saying that everything is FUBAR since 1983 and nobody else has noticed was followed by disregard of a request to provide any evidence for it. Various other violations of WP:Civil have been noted. Inasmuch as lesser infractions by myself and by Martin Hogbin seem sufficient for a finding, I do not find your evaluation of this matter even-handed. Of course, that is only my opinion, but I hope you might look at this matter more carefully. Brews ohare (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure

Durova removed your withdrawn section.[2] Is this the norm? Thanks. Ikip (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The norm is for it to be on the talk page, so it's OK as there's no issue with leaving it at one location. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hai NCM...

.. We dont see you recently at WT:INB.. Just checking whether things are Ok. Keep in touch -- Tinu Cherian - 19:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hai Tinu - yeah, things are just busy as usual. Will catch up with you some time next month I suspect. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. And thanks for the kind words at my RFA too.. Hope to see you back active at WP:INDIA again -- Tinu Cherian - 06:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ola!

It's been a while. Tiresome days at work and with Linux on my desktop, Wikipedia took the back seat. Hoping to add more to the pedia from now on. How have you been? Mspraveen (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, too busy for my liking - hopefully in about a month, will be in the same boat as you are now. :) A lot of the project members seem to be caught up with more busy periods this year - even at the dept. But I'm very happy to see you back! :D Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was this OK?

I saw this discussion. Since WP:RESTRICT has been working lately, and community restrictions are a concept that people are willing to use from time to time, I have some concern that there might be controversy about how discussions get closed, and how the decision to impose a sanction is reached. Without inviting you to press the matter further, I'd be curious if you think this way of issuing a restriction is OK. Getting a neutral admin to re-evaluate the discussion would be another way to handle it. Since the restriction itself is hardly more than a confirmation that policy applies to the actions of editor X, not much harm will be done if the restriction is left undisturbed.

Blocks are often issued in the course of ANI discussions without anyone being asked to formally close the discussion, or state the consensus. So why should restrictions be handled more cautiously than blocks? I hope I am not launching a 10,000-word discussion on three or more noticeboards, which is why I picked your user talk to ask this, since you know something about restrictions. EdJohnston (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC) and response coming soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for the long response, including lots of stuff you probably already know, but I think it'll help explain it better.
The community basically wields authority. If the community imposes a sanction on a user after coming to a consensus (and after carefully considering a lot of things), then it will be appealed in the same way. WP:RESTRICT is a log of community and ArbCom sanctions (for the purposes of enforcement actions), and admins are expected to fully adhere to it. Imposing restrictions unilaterally is simply risky business. If the community endorse the restriction, then great - no problems. Otherwise, not only does it risk being overturned by the community, but the imposing admin's judgement gets called into question as the admin's view was quite different to the community's view when imposing a "community sanction". This also makes it difficult to appeal as the community need to come to a consensus to reverse a sanction that they didn't actually impose as a community. Obviously, there is generally no objection to urgent individual sanctions, or temporarily urgent individual sanctions until further sanctions are established (similar to an injunction at ArbCom), but this is generally rare in community cases.
A block on the other hand is imposed after an admin has deemed it is needed, but may be reversed by any admin who thinks otherwise when responding to an unblock request. The number of users who patrol and handle unblock-situations may be greater than the number of users who participate in community restriction discussions, partially due to the drama involved. Further, blocks and warnings are limited to user block logs and user talk pages as they are individually imposed. With some exceptions (eg; ArbCom block), no administrator is truly bound by the terms imposed by the blocking admin (be it in terms of block duration), or unblocking admin (be it in specifically what conditions, if any, must exist for staying unblocked).
I think the current dispute will go to the perception that a sanction is only considered acceptable after a number of users have weighed in the discussion and there is a broad consensus for imposing the sanction in a particular way (that is, the particulars are sorted out before it is imposed) - see this example. Other users will contend that a consensus to take action is sufficient. At the end of the day, it is deeming whether the consensus, if any, was sufficient to be deemed as a community consensus to restrict in the way that the user was.
I've tried to cover the most basic issues on that, and have probably missed some. This may help explain some of the controversy also. But I hope that helps clarify! :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I also like the neutral phrasing of your new proposal at ANI. You're actually pointing out that the original thread did not give any attention to the best framing of any sanction that might wind up being applied. I hope that an uninvolved admin can be eventually found to close the newly-launched thread if it turns out that the editors appear to favor some action on the matter. This would take away any criticism that the closing admin acted unilaterally. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome. Indeed; and thank you. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag Conduct RfC

A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you participated in the discussion at the prior RfA and one of the prior AN/Is.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or
(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

  1. RfC Conduct
  2. RfC Guide
  3. RfC Guide 2
  4. RfC Rules

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction clerks

I see that WT:AN is reprising the idea of a Community Sanction Noticeboard. What would you think of a 'clerk system' for community sanction debates? The trouble is, when all are equal, and there is no referee, the long disputatious threads at ANI can meander forever. Closings can be undone. There might be a way to appoint people that were trusted by the community to referee the process, and remove inappropriate posts. ANI often does solve problems. Would like to know your thoughts. I also have some ideas of a formal system to find closers. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very interested in considering these ideas in more detail. Having clerks to remove inappropriate posts is very important in conducting these discussions smoothly, regardless of the status of the user who made the posts. Of course, there may be a couple of reservations I have for issues like if an uninvolved closer made the wrong call, even in closing it too early (that happened in the recent discussion, and it was one of those circumstances where it was appropriately and promptly reverted). Despite that, it's obviously more promising than what is up at WT:AN at the moment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that Arbcom closed a case September 13 asking the community to make rules for individual admins to impose community sanctions? The headline was Community discussion of topic-ban and page-ban procedure urged. Maybe a discussion has happened somewhere but I haven't seen it. (They gave us a month to take care of this issue :-). EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, the month duration they specified, among other things, led to some disagreement between myself and the arbs who supported that particular remedy. I don't think a discussion did end up happening, unless WP:Discretionary sanctions counts. But it is sort of happening now I guess? :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does count. Incidentally, no-one replied to my suggestion there about permitting discretionary sanctions only for certain users: "... discretionary sanctions may be applied to anyone who has been indef blocked (except where in acknowledged error), or anyone who has been cumulatively blocked for more than a month." Rd232 talk 15:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems it does. Hmm. Isn't that discussion considered closed now? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Seemed a bit premature, considering how long it takes for these things to work themselves out around here. Rd232 talk 16:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they will repeat this mistake again now. Your comment for this was very valuable; thank you!! :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speed of light talk page

TenofAllTrades asked me not to continue any physics discussions on Brew's talk page, so I'm replying here. I do not think that Brews would somehow tempted to violate his topic ban if the discussion were to go on on his page, but Ten is concerned about that.

About the SoL talk page, I'm referring to the recent discussions about imperial units. I can fully understand that people can be for or against inclusion of SoL in imperial units, so it is natural to expect some discussion on the talk page. What is not reasonable is the huge amount of postings it takes to reach a conclusion. What is also not helpful is that one editor (Dicklyon) waives the NOR flag to argue against unit conversion. Wiki policies are not meant to be used as vetoes by single editors. It would be different if he could get a consensus on the talk page about there being a NOR issue at all.

I personally have no strong preference for any of the options that are discussed on the SoL page. Count Iblis (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to this ASAP. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question I don't discussed anywhere on this page, so I'm asking here

Is there any particular reason you don't seem to have ever sought adminship? John Carter (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of reasons; I don't think I've ever cited the rationale on-wiki. As great as my admiration and respect for Dbachmann is, I would not be prepared to go through everything he's had to go through over the past few years of his tenure. Also, I don't want to limit my ability to guide certain certain kinds of disputes towards resolution, or the openness of my feedback/criticisms. But rather than go into more specifics, I should learn to be concise like Abecadare and sum it up: the entire process would have a negative effect on my contributions to the project, regardless of the outcome, and I guess that it would really not be worth all of that time, effort and usage of community resources. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I was just wondering. John Carter (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note

Dear Owner Sir of CM article Honestly சொள்ளூரெ (say) that I am not Naadapriya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.120.223 (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC) banned.[reply]

Why are so many "people" insistent that they are not Naadapriya? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because for Ncm all who try to correct his POVs in CM are Naadapriyas. You try to correct his POV in CM. You will become Naadapriya to him. BTW it is interesting that you getting here. Any behind the scene acts. May be I should look into your past involvement with Ncm related to CM. !=Naadapriya 75.55.120.223 (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC) banned.[reply]
As you might recall, I first got to interact with Ncm (which is itself a familiar abbreviation used by Naadapriya) regarding the Carnatic Music article - some two years ago, I suspect. I also watchlist Ncm's talkpage, because we have worked together on many other issues since then. That is what happens on a collaborative project... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow now your adhoc involvement adds 2 +2. Yes, quick research in Wikipidia shows your similar involvement in blocking Naadapriya to help Ncm to edit CM peacefully (quote from one of your buddy Admn)! I did not know that intimate contacts with Admns help push POV. and block whoever corrects it. BTW I learnt the abbreviation NcM from his/her meatpuppet Mspraveen. Now I have started reading more about Naadapriya's unsolved case. FYI I picked up 'Admn' from Naadapriya case.  != != != Naadapriya 75.55.120.223 (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC) banned.[reply]

Thanks

The Special Barnstar
Your input at arbitration workshops and clarification threads has been focused and helpful. Thank you for your good faith efforts to provide feedback and clarifying comments. It has not gone unnoticed or unappreciated. Vassyana (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. :) Your role in this has been extremely important. I am still holding back on some feedback (like I did the last time while I was waiting for "the right time"), but hopefully will have it all written out before Xmas this year...and even that will be be clarifying to an extent too. ;) :D Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Policing and Crime Act 2009

Hey, you couldn't do me a quick favour and assess Policing and Crime Act 2009 for me could you?

Be much appreciated :) Calvin (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that :) Any quick suggestions for improving the article? Calvin (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. :) It needs to be more comprehensive, with more commentary and more high quality reliable sourcing (including more in-line citations). Examples of articles on legislation that have been relatively successful include Limitation Act 1963 and Territorial and Reserve Forces Act 1907 - following how those articles were improved would probably give a sense of direction in improving this one. This legislation is quite recent, so it should be easier to find coverage from the press than for old legislation (like in those examples). The flipside of that is you may not find as much commentary or case law, but there's bound to be something out there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again :) I've done a lot of work on it today, finding press releases from related parties and putting them in as well. I am aware that more needs to go into the Bill side of it, and also some of the sections (such as extradition). I do appreciate your assistance so far, it's just all a bit new to me, writing an article from scratch. I've followed this particular Act since the Green Paper so it's almost a privilege to write an article about it. Is there anything else you can see from it that needs a bit of work? Calvin (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice improvements you've been making, and all in under a week so far! :) Adding cites for some of the facts, like that which I added, may also help. Will let you know about other steps you can take, but right now, I've nominated your work in the WP:DYK process because you've expanded this article fivefold within the last 5 days. I strongly recommend you follow the process so you have an idea of how it works, and the book of rules that go with it, etc. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I really appreciate the little tweaks and merges you did too. I've had a good read of the WP:DYK process too, and familiarised myself with the process. I'm going to aim to get some more Acts written up, as I feel I could write another one now too. Would you class the Policing and Crime Act as more than a Start on the quality scale? Calvin (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - without which, the article may not have existed, nor would have come up to such a good quality, nor without which we'd have this particular DYK. I look forward to reading through your other contributions. As for improving this particular one, or any other article once you come to this point, going to Wikipedia:Peer review would be really helpful and getting a broader perspective from legal and non-legal opinions, depending on who happens to go through your work there. :) If you read up on the good article process and featured article process, you're all set for content building I think. ;) And assessment  Done. Good luck, let me know how you go, and of course, keep in touch! Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it's always good to get back into writing again. I've put the article up for a Peer Review now. I did try to sort out the references so that they weren't just bare URLs, but appear to have really messed it up. I have no idea what I've done wrong. Any chance you could give it a quick look over and amend it for me? Thanks :) Calvin (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Policing and Crime Act 2009

Updated DYK query On November 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Policing and Crime Act 2009, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U closing?

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/NancyHeise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have commented there. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit troubled by this edit. I believe that User:Ryulong started this RFC/U prematurely, after rejecting repeated suggestions for mediation, perhaps with the hopes of taking it to the Arbitrarion Committee. He is far more experienced than I am in these matters,[3] [4] [5] as I have not even been anywhere near involved in something like this before. I think that the process has been illumniating and reinforced the need to be mindful of NPOV. I agree with your closure, but it would be inappropriate for me to revert Mr. Ryulong and start another edit war. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd reverted prior to your comment here. The closure may be permanent or temporary, but if parties do want a summary, you should make all attempts to try to come to an agreed wording with them. All of you need to edit with a spirit of cooperation, and that means being receptive to each others concerns. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

ArbCom RFC

Hi, I'm posting to you because I too am concerned about the way the ArbCom RFC was closed. I am concerned that the decision to move to a system of secret ballot seems to have been a "done deal" and one that lacked consensus.

I've prepared an RFC (another one!) the issue. I haven't publicised it yet but would greatly appreciate your opinion about it. Is it be worthwhile opening up and RFC on the question of the decision to the community? Do you have any advice on the design of such an RFC? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was very vocal about that too. But I think that ship has sailed for this year's election and it's a bit too late for this, given that voting has already commenced. However, I'm not going to strongly object to opening this RfC as it may still be worthwhile. Some users may want to record their view now, while I suspect the rest will want to during post-election. Not sure how the first 3 questions will be received, but keeping them there for the purposes of clarity isn't going to kill anyone. The most important feature this RfC should contain, and will likely focus on later, is reviewing whether the majority of the community still prefer this method of voting, if there should be any changes, etc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I've asked Elonka to delete the page. It is more sensible to wait until after the election and actually use an RFC to gaguge how folk feel about a secret ballot after they have had a chance to use it. If we go for it them ... well, at least we will be better informed. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How best to close an RfC on a contentious topic

Hello Ncmvocalist. You have expertise on closing things. I posted here that I was about to close a discussion at WT:AFD about changing the WP:Guide to deletion regarding the status of live merges, those which a single editor performs while an AfD is still running. Though everyone involved seems to have jumped through the correct hoops, I'm somewhat concerned that edit-warring might ensue at the WP:Guide to deletion if I go ahead and insert the new language, which I've prepared at User talk:EdJohnston#Third version for your comments. There is no particular deadline for this closing, but doing it right is desirable. (The RfC was opened October 16). Extra review steps are possible if they would help to prove that the RfC justifies this result. There is an option to message all 28 participants in the original RfC for their views on this result, but I don't know if that is usual. Thanks for any suggestions you can offer. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdJohnston. Technically, your changes will have come about from the consensus-building process evident both on the talk page, as well as your own talk page, so I wouldn't expect the changes to be a problem on their own - particularly given how receptive you have been to expressed concerns. That said, making a note on the talk page and/or making all of the participants aware of the outcome of an RfCis an excellent idea towards avoiding editwars concerning it. If you want, you can explicitly note that users have 48 hours to register endorsements/objections to move this towards closure as a priority, given how long it's taken as it is. ;) But if after all this, anyone edit-wars on the main page without coming to a consensus to make those reverts, they can expect to be thrown in a wiki deep fryer, temporarily or permanently(!) But like I said, 48 hours (or longer if addressing objections) and it should be ready to go. I hope that helps. :) Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It does sound like a further waiting period at WT:AFD would help to demonstrate that consensus was being followed. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify at ANI

Please clarify if that is now an endorse. If it is an endorse, it should be unequivocal. It appears to be rather neutral. You can clarify there, as you owe me no explanation.--Die4Dixie (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment

I seem to recall you endorsing a position taken by a mediator prior to the ArbCom for which you are seeking an amendment. That ArbCom found that the mediation failed and that parties I'd claimed were adversarial were adversarial, contrary to the opinion of the mediator. The mediator was later requested to cease involvement with me personally.

Everyone else seems to be willing to let sleeping dogs lie. Harmony sometimes needs that. If others choose to take up your line of action, naturally I expect you will declare your prior involvement, and admit your earlier errors in handling the case, in the interests of candor and good faith. But do we really need to go there? Alastair Haines (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer disputes resolve themselves with no action - if I was satisfied that harmony would result from this staying as is, I wouldn't have filed the request. In the meantime, my response to your claims of involvement/mediator has been made there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that; and I'm just as satisfied that events have proved restricting me promotes disharmony. Let's see how people go as they start trawling back through the evidence they need to make a decision. If they think that's what's necessary. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Sanctions that are imposed by admins

In a thread at AN you expressed qualms about the new section that Jehochman added at the bottom of WP:RESTRICT. When I first saw his sanction on Kils, I thought it was adventurous, but now it's starting to look more normal. It's true (in my view) that if an admin can block A for doing policy-violating X, he should be able to warn A that he must not do X, on pain of a block. In effect, that is a restriction. Admins say things like that an the 3RR noticeboard all the time when they close a case with a warning against specific misbehavior, and I think people hardly notice it. There is always a risk that other admins will not support any particular restriction, so, to have credibility, an admin may want to have a discussion somewhere to be sure that others would line up in favor of the restriction. This is a somewhat gray area, but I don't think it poses a general problem. The original proposal WP:Discretionary sanctions was more scary because it suggested that admins could unilaterally do the things Arbcom can do.

Personally, I don't think I would ever use the new section that Jechochman placed at WP:RESTRICT, but I don't object to its being there. If it turns out that restrictions which are placed in that manner are allowed to stand, the section may remain. If they are routinely undone, the section may be removed due to disuse.

JEH could have avoided this issue if (a) he'd made an entry at AN pointing to the WP:SPI discussion of the proposed restriction, (b) waited a few days to see if there were any responses. If none, then I think it could have been logged as a community sanction and there would have been no need for a new section. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist, there is a subtle difference between You are banned from editing Article A, where editing Article A by itself is a perfectly reasonable thing for an editor to do, and You are restricted from spamming Article A, which is something already forbidden by policy. To do the former, there needs to be a community discussion or arbitration case. Any admin can do the latter; it is simply a restratement of the rules already in place. Jehochman Talk 15:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your comparisons is that a warning (or "restatement" of policy for a particular user) is not recorded in a public log for a reason - it is just a warning that is left on a user talk page. What would have been acceptable is to have a particular log dedicated to logging such warnings for any user rather than inequitably or prejudicially treating any one user in that way - most important was raising awareness of the system so that reminders/warnings are logged when issued against repeat offenders who've engaged in far more problematic conduct, or far less for that matter. The moral of the story is that creating your own new procedures without broad input creates strife in this day and age - any perceptions of potential abuse stem from admins propensity to take precisely these kind of actions. In other words Jehochman, I hope you are taking note of what EdJohnston has said in his last paragraph in (a); you can assume I echo that, but as a sweeping criticism of your approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ncmvocalist. The intensity of your dispute with JEH seems out of proportion to what's been going on. Though I do not always perceive him as reasoning in a straight line, I don't see anything he has done that would justify such an intense response from you. I was puzzled when he created a new section at WP:RESTRICT, which one assumes was intended to pioneer a new approach to disputes. Questioning him as to the reasons for this might be appropriate. However, jumping straight to WP:AN for review seems more than what was needed as a reply. The original Kils restriction was so obvious and banal, and approved by so many admins who helped at the SPI (as well as by the person restricted) as not to require extensive comment. Your AN suggested that JEH was leaving the reservation: "Creating your own new procedures on your whim without broader input creates strife in this day and age". On the whole, I felt that the numerous responses at AN showed that most editors had a nuanced understanding of when restrictions were justified, and how consensus for them should be determined. The Kils restriction was well within discretion, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EdJohnston. I think that's a bit naiive - your comment suggests that this one action/case/incident is the dispute when it's not. Each time I (or in some cases, others) give your colleague the benefit of the doubt, it has been futile and he demonstrates he learnt little if anything from prior experience (see, for example, what happened here and why - this is not the first time). I did, to an extent, justify the intensity here, but it really does not encapsulate the much larger problem about approach that has existed over an extended period of time with Jeh. I too was naiive though - trying to separate Jeh/Kils from the process was clearly not working. Compare what happened here to another reality: there is a reluctance to intervene in cases of harassment where the alleged harasser's edits had an acceptable outcome (or were factually correct) - when it's not though, both procedure and substance is considered many times, and both are very firmly dealt with. I'm not going pursue this dispute because any proper resolution is impossible with users whose means of escaping responsibility is politics - but most importantly, I don't have that kind of time. Still, my comments act as a record (particularly where it reached breaking point) for those who are willing and have the time to appropriately pursue it further through DR in the future, and I have no doubt that at this rate, that someone will feel bound to. There ends the matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Derogatory comments made without evidence, such as diffs, are nothing more than personal attacks. Wikipedia is not for personal disputes. If you have an issue, either resolve it or drop it. Making vague, mysterious innuendos about other editors is most unhelpful. If you want to be critical, be specific, cite diffs, and be thoughtful or humorous. I find your remarks about me to be the pinnacle of drudgery and rudeness. Jehochman Talk 20:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While it's a relief that you are familiar with some Wikipedia policies, Jehochman, you are not getting it - you are responsible for resolving the ongoing issues that you cause; not anyone else. I have already identified and justified the issues, in a combination of my comments here, at AN, and also at this page which contained very specific diffs of an example. You are in no position to demand that others either pretend to be mute or themselves resolve such glaring problems with your clumsy approach. Nothing is vague/mysterious about you not being receptive to the concerns - in fact, even your comment is another example of repeatedly evading expressed criticisms (even if it means making it about someone else). Again, I'm not interested in being sucked into your political games - this action should be sufficiently explicit as to what will happen if you aren't receptive to this concern on this page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you threatening me? Jehochman Talk 14:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

I have removed your bombastic commentary from my talk page. Please do not post there again. Jehochman Talk 13:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pot calling kettle black - your dubious characterisations need to stop. The "remove trolling by Ncmvocalist" in your edit summary is wholly inappropriate conduct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premature Alert Closure

You may have prematurely close the Wiki alert I started. You have misrepresented my position there. Please reconsider and reopen the issue, until the offending editor has been given ample time to properly answer without further attacks. Thank you. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Requesting advice after claiming that a user is trolling (without diffs/evidence) is unhelpful, and borderline unacceptable. If you cannot substantiate your claim, you need to strike it. To substantiate a claim about trolling, WQA is unlikely to be an appropriate venue in which case you are advised to escalate this to the appropriate venue - RfC/U to establish the issue.
  2. It is acceptable to create a page that is intended as a draft RfC/U as I noted at the discussion. WMC's page is clearly marked to this effect and he is entitled to present the evidence in the manner in which he wishes at the time of filing an RfC/U - you simply need to be ready to respond at that time. Unless you intend on aggressively attempting to change what is acceptable on Wikipedia, that is not an issue.
  3. Some of the things he has called you is certainly a possible issue - that the parts others found to be an issue have since been refactored or removed moot that concern. If you believe that WMC is going to continue in that style of commentary, then again, please use RfC/U to establish that problem.
  4. Bringing up an user's history of being a desysopped admin certainly comes close to an attack as it attempts to cast aspersions on one aspect of the user's contributions with another aspect. If anything, it is your approach that appears to require some modification.
  5. I'm not sure what you are expecting - but you've been given advice on how to deal with the issues you seem to be having. Rejecting that advice and insisting that the WQA stays open is unproductive. I agree that it may not be a correct conclusion to mark the WQA resolved, but it is certainly fully appropriate to mark it stuck where the parties clearly have not and are unlikely to come to an agreement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

RfAr

Hello. I have modified my statement as you requested. I would strongly advise you against airing your grudges about Jehochman on the RfAr page. At present they are left as unarticulated innuendo. I am certainly not Jehochman's greatest fan because (a) he rarely looks before he leaps (b) he is often inconsistent and can act according to his own whims rather than consensus. In this particular case, however, if you look at the background, you would find that Drolz09 has been editing problematically. Personally I find that many of his contributions seem to show too extensive a knowledge of the workings of wikipedia for a newbie - in particular the past history of GW articles. User:Raul654 stopped working on/policing GW articles in early October. Yet Drolz09, apparently new to editing last week, knows all about his subpages (see the MfD on User:Drolz09/Quotations). I can't see how a newbie would have known this. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drolz09 has pointed out that Flegelpuss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) suggested he use this argument in the MdF on his talk page. Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, it's good advice - I have better things to do with my time. In this particular case, I don't have real doubts about the editing - but I do have doubts as to whether that is the only problem-source on the articles/topic. I think there is more that is under the surface, and it is not a concert I am particularly keen on watching either. Still, there isn't much ArbCom would be able to do on that front without strong evidence to that effect. Thank you for responding to my request though. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ncm, in response to your question the warnings are found here. It looks like one of them is uninvolved in the dispute itself, from what I can tell. I would have replied on the page, but was already replying more than I wanted to. Regards, Mackan79 (talk)

Hi Mackan. That's fine - thank you for responding to my request. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom election

FYI - there's a request for feedback on the ArbCom election. No question about the choice of switching using a secret ballot, but I dropped a line on the talk page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what's goin on?

what's up woth 75.62.177.138 ‎ ? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet of community-banned User:Naadapriya. He's gotten more aggressive lately and has been removing sock tags. There were 88 pages tagged before; I added 4 today but that we're still at 88 suggests that he's been going back and removing tags that trail his puppetry. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked this latest sock (although I suspect he'll be back at another IP soon). Best to deny him recognition; no point getting into edit-wars with him especially since he is already prevented from disrupting in mainspace. Abecedare (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. True; you have a point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)OK. I have the last 4 on my watchlist. (88's a bit too much... :P) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'll see if there is a way around that issue - will let you know. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. Contrary to what User:Finell suggested at RFAR, I don't dislike you. You have energy, which is good, and some day I am hopeful you'll learn to channel it more productively (in my humble opinion), which will be better. Agreeing with me is not a requirement for getting along with me.
  2. Would you like help setting up an archiving bot? This page is really long. Jehochman Talk 14:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the page down now - a bot's not really needed for the complex but useful half-yearly exercise that I do (or so I find). When I replied to Finell, I considered his understanding to be limited to what he was sure about with respect to you. Based on your notes here, I've amended my rfar comment, which I think will clarify my own position with respect to you. Cheers for the notes, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 04:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at WP:AN (Logicus)

I don't know the nature of your disputes with Finnel, but it is certainly not appropriate to drag them into the discussions on that page. Please discuss those issues on your User talk pages or the pages concerned with the specific disputes they address. To this outside observer some of your comments, e.g., "your mind-boggling level of foolishness" approach the limits of WP:NPA. Please moderate your tone. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Talk:M. S. Subbulakshmi

Can you take a look at the "mother tongue" discussion? First I'm hearing of this, could be our friend, I've asked YM to take a look on that. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 18:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I've been away for some time - thanks for keeping an eye out. :) Hope all is well! Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

  • gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

You're back

I see that you are back. I've been wondering where you've been since Christmas.—Finell 08:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Proposed decision

Your continuing drama mongering and borderline attacks are not warrented on the above page. Please tone it down else you'll find yourself with a page ban or block. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First I've seen of this, and, since one comment in question has been removed, I can't comment on the case itself, but it seems to me that Ncmvocalist is just asking questions. Doesn't warrant a ban, a block, or even a warning. IMO. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My view is no different to RegentsPark. But alas, it's another example of the arbitration office trying very hard to hold complete control over their pages, even in the questions that are asked and answered. Frankly though, it's a mere courtesy that I've approached the office directly with these questions, and I've been more than considerate in the issues I selected to raise there - the next step will be completely outside of their control, and if they prefer it to become (and remain) less pleasant, then it'll be out of my hands. I personally think it would be a pity, when there's a very simple and costless way to avoid it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that what Ncmvocalist was protesting included substandard clerking and oppressive responses to whistleblowing, it might be more suitable for the case clerk to respond in a less inflammatory manner. Durova409 23:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on my talk page

I probably should have been a little less curt in my reply to your post, so I'd just like to say that although my position is unchanged, I meant no offence. Mostly I'm a nice person, except when I'm not. ;) Parrot of Doom 01:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Received - it may be some time before a reply is sent, but I will make a note here when that happens. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. ;) Replied. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong place

You posted in the section: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Mooretwin, which says, "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above." You need to move your post to the previous section. Ty 05:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've quite actively ignoring that rule because it prevents decision making from improving and is the venue for distinguishing uninvolved input. The alternative is for you to create a section dedicated to that without interference from involved users - that's when I'd be ready to move my comment, though I'd expect nearly all of the other commentary (including yours) to also move in that section. Strictly speaking, the section you point to is dedicated to publishing the result by the uninvolved admin who decided the outcome; not arguing for or against it, even if you do have tools. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AE

You are placing your comment in a section for Admins only read the top of it. And I agree 1RR doesn't work on some editors hence MT being blocked. BigDunc 15:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the section above this one you created - if you have an issue, take it up with Ty. Also, if as an involved editor in the area, either you, Domer, or anyone else tries to edit my commentary, you won't be given any more warnings. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you going on about warnings for what? Not my fault you can't understand a simple instruction do what you like, also as requested I informed TY. BigDunc 15:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By what stretch of the imagination you thought it was appropriate for involved editors like you and Domer to repeatedly edit others comments, let alone in a section that is purely for uninvolved input, and especially when my input disagrees with your opinions, is beyond me. Warnings about that is what I was referring to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments were not edited just moved, so fire away with the warnings they would be as laughable as your attitude. BigDunc 15:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's amusing that you'd cry me a river over something so ridiculously petty. You moved my comments out of context as if they were a reply to you when they were a response to someone else; that constitutes editing my comments as far as I'm concerned - if you want to disagree and use shoddy excuses, go right ahead, but the fact of the matter is, you seem to have trouble distinguishing between what refactoring is and what editing is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you had have waited to let me finish the move you would have seen that I was about to place an @Angusmclellan before your comment but in your haste I ended up with an edit conflict, but who cares I wont be feeding you any more. BigDunc 16:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What part of This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above do you not understand? Now I've again moved your post to the section that is not marked This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and followed the advice which says Comments by others will be moved to the section above. --Domer48'fenian' 16:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What part about "do not edit others comments" do you not understand? Do you always act disruptively when you know that "you are involved and that it is not appropriate for you to edit uninvolved input that disagrees with you"? Such deliberate attempts to compromise the integrity of this project will not tolerated if you ever touch my comments in any way outside of your userspace. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mooretwin

I'll be frank: I am torn. On the one hand I acknowledge that the block defies my conception of "fair" or "equitable", and apparently it is seen that way by others. I think the nature of the edit and the nature of the complaint make the block rather dubious. On the other hand, if we consider the problem of resolving the wider issue, it is certainly most expedient that Mooretwin should have been blocked for a merely technical violation. It makes subsequent blocks of other usual suspects that much more likely to stick. You could be more sympathetic to the argument from expediency after running into the Dunc and Domer show today than you might have been beforehand. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a fair point; it's too difficult to look past their conduct history in such circumstances. I'm a lot more sympathetic to the expediency argument. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WQA notification

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, {{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

ANI thread advice please

It looks like Arbcom is rejecting the case and Proofreader77 has been indef blocked again. Do you think the ANI thread can just be archived and picked up again if they return, or do we need to see the issue through in some way? -- Banjeboi 19:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it can be archived - as he's not formally banned, if he makes an unblock request, any admin can unblock and someone would have to pick it up again. Imposing the restriction prior to archiving the discussion would be ideal to set the conditions of unblock in advance, but I don't think it's likely with the many distracting remarks/sections that continue to be created. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case

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/ChildofMidnight/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/ChildofMidnight/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the assist. The simple reason there was a time lag was that I simply didn't know about the comment, and found it by accident. Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unarchiving

Based on this I think you are under the mistaken impression that I closed the WP:AN conversation. I did not, as you'll see if you review the history. I only wanted to address the IRC issue, which seems quite separate from the original thread which is indeed being discussed elsewhere now, and tacked it on after the main thread was closed by another editor. There was no reason for you to unarchive the original threads (particularly since it seems to have been based on a false assumption) and I suggest you undo that action now. No one's going to be harmed by discussing the IRC matter for a little while, so let's just let that run its course and then it will shortly be archived as well. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know who archived it, and it was due to his own commentary in that thread that I unarchived it - Ironholds opened the thread and he's entitled to his concerns being responded to, without you (or him) unduly shifting the focus of the discussion he wanted responses to. You're not accomplishing anything more than what the original thread was accomplishing, so your part should be archived in the same fashion as what was before it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And to respond to your misunderstanding about IRC, anyone who is authorized to enter a particular channel in IRC can view all public conversations that occur in that channel. Expecting answers is foolish, and frankly, I'd advise any user using IRC not to respond to such questions - even for the valid questions. There's nothing to substantiate any concerns about someone going after an arbitrator, anymore than someone covering up problems. Why people are wary or not wary of IRC is really not my concern, seeing I don't have such strong views against or for particular discussions occurring on IRC, except where it is used as a replacement for consensus building. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Please stop stirring the pot at WP:AN. I think we all get that you don't want to discuss IRC's role in the current kerfuffle. That doesn't mean you get to hide the discussion. The rest of it is being hashed out elsewhere. Let the IRC thing play out, and quit stirring the pot. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your call to make; in fact, it seems Durova and Ironholds support my position, and even RxS doesn't seem to understand what you and Bigtimepeace are trying to accomplish. You seem to have trouble accepting consensus, Unitanode. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you even talking about? Consensus has no bearing on whether or not the question posed in the section has been answered. You're simply moving the hab because I didn't let you reopen the entire discussion. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Err no, I moved the hab because both discussions are accomplishing the same - what you seem to think you can do is demand that one part remain archived, while another part remain unarchived, despite having strong views on the part you want unarchived. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Err yes, you moved the hab only after I didn't let you reopen the whole discussion. And the IRC portion of the discussion is ongoing, which removes it from the necessity of hatting. You really need to stop beating the horse now. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My first comment at that discussion explicitly said it should either all be open or all be closed - why? Because it accomplishes the same. So trying to make it out like something else reflects poorly on you and what you're capable of in terms of inappropriate conduct, Unitanode. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your first comment proves my point: you tried to hat everything when you didn't get your way about opening up everything. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is it's not remotely your call to make, Ncmvocalist, for a couple of reasons: 1) You're not an administrator, and should not be hatting threads in a contentious fashion; 2) You are obviously highly opinionated about the matter and thus not a neutral observer. Feel free to weigh in, of course, but leave the archiving or unarchiving to an uninvolved admin. Overall you have rather severely overreacted here, and ironically probably made a lot more people interested in the question being asked. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I overreacted? I'm not the one who misused rollback, edit-warred to maintain a particular close, nor am I the one who contributed to the discussion. The fact is, you're the one that is highly opinionated on this matter, along with Unitanode. Play politics all you like; it won't change the fact. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you overreacted, you edit warred, and you closed a thread about which you were strongly opinionated. I did not do those things, and while Unitanode reverted you the fact is you had no business hatting that in the first place. As to "playing politics" I literally have no idea what you are talking about and as such really have no more to say here. I suggest you and Unitanode both disengage from one another both here and on AN. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, Unitanode isn't highly opinionated, nor are you, but Ironholds and I am because I disagree with the both of you. That makes perfect sense. Your last sentence is probably the only useful comment you've added here, and even then he could not heed the advice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CoM's block record

If you believe there is a problem with CoM's block record, it would be probably more helpful if you gave a detailed summary in the evidence section of the ArbCom case, explaining why the blocks were applied and the exact circumstances of those that were overturned. This is not immediately obvious glancing at the block record and in fact might be quite complex in certain cases. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would, though in the absence of me having the time to do so, and due to the reluctance to bring up more parties and admin names, I doubt it's in my hands. At the end of the day, I've raised awareness of the issue. It's possible that ArbCom might choose to ignore/overlook/manipulate it (wouldn't be the first time), or it's possible that ArbCom will explicitly consider the issue (wouldn't be the first time either) - no amount of detail is going to be helpful if ArbCom are not interested in the latter. Nevertheless, I'd have suggested you give this advice to CoM, but his refusal to participate may, to some extent, prove a point in the long term. Perhaps you could check if Caspian will have the time to assist further? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My plan is not to participate in the case. I still think it would be extremely helpful for all involved if you prepared a short annotated list - there's no particular hurry. Mathsci (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't guarantee anything, especially if things move too hastily - but I'll try compile something to that effect with what time I do have. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Several days have now elapsed. You have added proposed principles to the workshop page related to ChildofMidnight's blocklog, without giving detailed underlying evidence. Please could you do so now? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until I come to the phase of writing up findings, I don't intend on moving this up on my priority list - evidence supports findings which supports remedies; principles should be able to stand on their own. I appreciate that some users might not understand the relevance of the principles without skimming the workshop page, and I also appreciate that you might have been involved in a dispute with CoM at one point and may be eager to see how I view these issues. But like I said above, I can't guarantee anything - I'll try compile something with what time I do have. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Request for Comment

Hi. I was planning on using the Asgardian RfC page to post a list that I'm going to refer the summary that I'm going to post on the Arbitration evidence page, in order to ensure that my summary is within the allowed size. Now that the RfC is closed, where can I post it? Nightscream (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing is probably to create the page in your userspace. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Daśāvatāra#Move_to_which_name

Thanks for giving your comments at Talk:Daśāvatāra#Requested_move. As per the consensus: The result of the proposal was move to nondiacritic for the article. Several alternatives have been presented for this particular article (Dashavatara, Dasavatara, Dashavatar) so please help pick an appropriate one. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grundle2600

This is confusing, the ANI thread mentions a topic ban. The only topic ban logged at WP:RESTRICT is from editing articles related to US politicians. Apparently what is meant is something completely different - editing articles on climate change - which appear to be on probation. Looks like the probation is a topic wide one. Editing a climate change article on probation does not equate to violating a topic ban on editing a US politician article, per the ban logged at WP:RESTRICT. Mjroots (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ncmvocalist&oldid=346891041"