User talk:Ncmvocalist/Archive 8

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

You're awesome[edit]

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[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

browser[edit]

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

Finding a suitable unblock condition for User:Iaaasi[edit]

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

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

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

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

Consensus[edit]

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

  • I believe my entire level of involvement is a single statement in the arbitration request, and nominating WP:NONCE for deletion. → ROUX ₪ 10:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely uninvolved - not edited any of the articles in current dispute and cannot recall ever having discussed anything with this editor. I based this on looking at the evidence--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No involvement of which I'm aware. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not involved in any disputes with Stevertigo or any of the other editors before the ANI thread. I had a dispute with Stevertigo and User:Andrew Lancaster at Language long ago, in which I was frustrated with Stevertigo's editing style. When I saw the ANI thread I commented and went on to look at some of the articles that were locis of current disute with Steve such as Human,Animal rights and Punishment. In all three cases I shared Stevertigo's impression that the article could be improved, although I disagreed with him about how. In every case I stated my opinion on the talk page and did not engaged in discussion. I am not currently involved in discussions or editing of those articles. I also don't have a strong opinion in favour or against sanctions against Stevetigo. There are definitly problems, I just tend to prefer to explore other solutions before banning a long time contributor. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was tangled up in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism but nothing since then, so "formerly involved" would be fitting. I don't have a running/active beef with Steve now. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no involvement with Stevertigo apart from commenting at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Nonce introductions, and restoring his version of Truth once after seeing it reverted without substantive justification [1]. Peter Karlsen (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minimal involvement in my case. As far as editng articles is concerned, I encountered him on Talk:Many-worlds interpretation, but Michael C. Price discussed with him, I didn't say anything there. In the AN/I thread, I noted that people had complained about Stevertigo's behavior and the way he had argued on Talk:Many-worlds interpretation fitted the pattern painted about him (although, taken in isolation, the exchange at Talk:Many-worlds interpretation was not a big deal). I think I recommended 0RR + mentoring in the AN/I discussion. Count Iblis (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was involved with the dispute over Human (though I will note I initiated the content merge which eventually resolved the dispute). I have not encountered Stevertigo on any other articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been involved in reverting Stevertigo's problem edits on different articles, see [2], [3], [4],[5]. --Modocc (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ncmvocalist asked me to document my level of involvement. I'm not involved in Stevertigo's recent disputes. I've reverted his OR a few times over the years. I tried to defend him during the AN/I discussion in September 2009, where some editors wanted a community ban; I suggested (e.g. here) that if he would stick to supplying sources a ban could be avoided. My most-recent sustained interaction with him was at Animal rights in May this year, where he removed sourced material from the lead and replaced it with his own opinion. Several of us debated with him on the talk page here between May 3 and 24 about the need to use sources. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ncmvocalist asked me to document my level of involvement. I am not and have not been involved in Stevertigo's recent disputes. I have engaged in heated conflict with him on the Talk: Jesus page, the Talk: Yeshu page, and perhaps a couple of other pages, over the past few years. I have reverted some of his edits to these articles, although not all, and I do not recall any disputes that ever reached the 3RR point. I would not consider myself a neutral party and hope I never gave that impression. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Stevertigo[edit]

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

According to the conventional Wikipedia definition of the term, you're an involved editor because of your extensive and heated disputes with Stevertigo over a period of at least six years ([6], Talk:Holocaust_denial/Archive_14#Conceptualization_issues, for example.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WQA[edit]

Change of target [7]. 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 ([8])...meh, I guess. :S Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well... I can't help feeling there's maybe a language issue, or a difficulty in dealing with the Mediawiki format.... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Rollback feature[edit]

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

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

rollback surgery[edit]

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

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

The Signpost: 4 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN response[edit]

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

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

The Signpost: 18 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your notifications of the current SecurePoll RfC[edit]

Hi Ncm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arb report Nov 1[edit]

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[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending[edit]

[9] 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[edit]

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

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

Mick ANI[edit]

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

Sorry Gigs; John and GoodDay had already commented. So I took yours, Lar's, and Bovlb's comment and pasted it, but I must've overwritten the first comment with the 'copied from the original discussion' sign [10]. :( I've pasted your reply now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I figured it was unintentional. Gigs (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical interpretations[edit]

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

Also, this may not be the most helpful choice of phrasing: [11] ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've responded to the 'nonsensical' matter elsewhere (it should be clear that I object to my interpretation of WP:CANVASS being described as nonsensical, but if that is your opinion, fair enough). What I am more concerned about (and I didn't really notice this properly before) was where you said arbitrators [...] may want to reconsider whether they can afford to do so. I may be being really obtuse here, but what did you mean by that? Were you referring to more arbitrators than just me? I've tried several times to work out what you might have meant by that, but rather than come up with a nonsensical interpretation, I'll wait and see if you can clarify what you meant by that statement. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Lar, maybe you could move your comment to a new section?[reply]

AN/I[edit]

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

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

Arbcom report[edit]

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[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Revision[edit]

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

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

If you have the time...[edit]

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

Belated[edit]

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

The Signpost: 22 November 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Your question[edit]

I'm happy to answer it, but I think it's supposed to be on this page [13] 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[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

English WikiProject News

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

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


What's New?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed...

SBC-YPR, Sodabottle (Editors)

Tinucherian (Distributor)


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

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

This newsletter is automatically delivered by User:Od Mishehu AWB, operated by עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Arbcom questions[edit]

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[edit]

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 [14]. 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[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you commented at AN/I[edit]

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

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

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[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

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

Thank You[edit]

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

Sandy's charts[edit]

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

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

You are out of line[edit]

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

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

Talkbacks[edit]

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

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

Thank you[edit]

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

The Signpost: 13 December 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More on Signpost[edit]

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.[15] 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[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN[edit]

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Members[edit]

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 [16]. 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[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy, happy[edit]

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[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

  • this is getting tedious. And you have the fucking nerve to tell me to "behave". Incivility begets incivility. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:40, 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 starting to ask whether we have already got to the point where this town isn't big enough for the both of us? Yes, I was indeed trying to make a point; I'm not doing that again. It's time for both of us to grow up, if we are to work together. Unless, of course, you are not prepared to collaborate with me, in which case it's about time you took your own name off the worklist. Regards, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:39, 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[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia![edit]

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[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good close[edit]

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[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly arbitration report[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

... 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[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 7 March 2011[edit]

Hm...[edit]

I was bold and changed the headline to read "three open cases" [17] 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[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

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[edit]

Suggestions?[edit]

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 [18] (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[edit]

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]

Special:Contributions/Geo Swan shows that Geo Swan has become active and User talk:Geo Swan#User:Iqinn's reply to I request you try to avoid triggering edit wars indicates that the problems mentioned at the RfC may be continuing. Would you close the RfC with the drafted summary? Cunard (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for closing the RfC. Cunard (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. As you know, I had hoped that I could convince a more direct agreement from both users off wiki but my impressions are that it's going to take more time than it is worth (something which I don't have a lot of which is why it kept going down on my 'to do' list). This is certainly better than nothing though, so I hope it will have the desired effect in practice. Thank you for the timely update, as well as your help and understanding in general. I really appreciate it, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words, but all of the credit belongs to you for spending time mediating during a dispute you probably weren't interested in. A balanced summary that will hopefully put an end to the drama. Cunard (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

You have new messages (last change).

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

Your revert at WP:GS[edit]

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/Archive 1#Sanctions display format. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011[edit]

Al-Kindi[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Mathsci[edit]

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]

NithyasreeMahadevan.jpg[edit]

NCMVocalist: I want to get a few facts out there before this is deleted.

1. Yes, this is a professional photo. It was taken by a professional studio in Chennai at the behest of Mrs. Nithyasree Mahadevan.

2. I was emailed this picture (among others) by Mrs. Nithyasree Mahadevan on March 27th of 2011.
3. Mrs. Nithyasree Mahadevan explicitly instructed me to use this photo on her wiki page since she felt that the old photo was not reflective of her stage persona.
4. Mrs. Nithyasree Mahadevan happens to be my sister-in-law (her husband is my wife's own brother)
5. If you want to personally verify, please contact her directly and ask about Venkatesh in Chicago.
6. I can understand your zealous guarding of her page but I assure you, the photo is original and it's being used to update the artist's page at her own request.vpadmana (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2011 (CDT)

Responded. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case[edit]

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/Noleander/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/Noleander/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost article[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure what you use as your weekly deadline or cut-off, but there is now a proposed decision posted in the Henri Coanda case. I do not know if you'd want to report on it in tomorrow's Signpost or leave it until next week, but FYI. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the heads up, and as there are no issues this week which would warrant putting it off, have just included it in the coming Signpost edition. Cheers again, Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu Tip[edit]

As of a few hours ago, the committee closed the case by motion. You might want to take a look. Hasteur (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the note; will cover it in the coming week's report. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Recent removal on my talk page[edit]

While I did plan to ignore the request of the anonymous IP on my talk page supposedly (and likely) belonging to a blocked user, I would nonetheless politely request that in future you not remove contents from my talk page unless they are overt vandalism. While the communique was unwarranted and not something I planned to act on, just on general principle I'd rather retain control of the contents of my talk page unless they are blatant vandalism/attacks. Not a big deal, just wanted to let you know. - Vianello (Talk) 03:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but just be aware that according to ban policy, anyone can revert it without further reason (any edits to Wikipedia by a banned user are treated no differently to vandalism in the eyes of the Community). The options under which banned users may appeal were deliberately limited for that reason. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 April 2011[edit]

YogeshKhandke and Fowler[edit]

Could you take a look at this? YK believes that Fowler is pushing the line of civility in his posts and I'm not so sure. You're a better judge of these things. Thanks. --rgpk (comment) 20:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, although Fowler was OK and seems to be making useful points on content and I can feel him trying to appropriately exercise restraint in his comments [19], he is starting to push the line in other edits and needs to take a great deal of care with what he says about/to YK on his talk (and in edit summary). If he feels an editor is pushing a national POV, or if sources are frequently not being represented fairly or accurately, or if there is any other conduct concern, the best thing for him to do is to maintain an evidence trail which can be used if things need to be escalated. His current approach is certainly not going to work, particularly when YK is starting to try each step. There's nothing worse than losing content builders over civility issues. YK would also do well to learn from the criticisms over his edits rather than jumping when there is something he finds critical of his editing; etiquette is not the be all and end all. As it is, it has come to the point where I stepped in to ask for a topic ban after examining allegations of POV pushing; putting many editors from a particular area under sanctions is not something I want to see. They both need to work collegially and collaborate (and if an editor seems to be consistently failing to comply with policies, then that needs to be elaborated without pushing the line of civility - and that may require going through more DR steps/venues in this case). It would help if Fowler agreed to take more care in the future to avoid some of those remarks (and even apologise for any offense caused), and it would help if YK agreed to take more care in his editing (and even apologise for the extra work he might have caused for other editors), and go back to the content issues from there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your post and good advice, Ncmvocalist. I have made this unequivocal apology both on Khandke's talk page and RP's. Dear Yogesh Khandke, I apologize unequivocally for all words, phrases, or figures of speech that you consider to be insulting or uncharitable. I will now be taking a short leave of absence from editing both the Ganges and Talk:Ganges pages and will, consequently, be out of your hair. You, I hope, will return the favor by not appearing with dispatch on the page I edit next, especially if you have no history of hitherto editing that page. Happy editing. Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC) I have also detailed my concerns about Wikistalking in this post on the Talk:Ganges page. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thank you for taking it on board. Although my initial reaction is that I don't want to see a loss of your contributions from the article, given the circumstances, I understand on a few levels why you've taken the leave of absence, so do let me know if there are further issues. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 April 2011[edit]

RFC/U[edit]

Thank you for closing the proceeding. Just so that there is no confusion from the last-minute kerfuffle, I intend to honor the points listed on your closing summary. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to notify you[edit]

As you normally do this, I'm notifying you that I've started an Arbitration report at the signpost. See here. Feel free to change it in anyway. Doh5678 Talk 20:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2011[edit]

AEsh[edit]

This arb case needs an acronym. You have used 'AEsh' for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling in a Signpost issue. I am not sure why mixed case was used, since it could be hard to remember in an acronym. What would you think of WP:AESH as a permanent redirect to this case? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We used that for the report because it follows how the case is titled (it's for ease of reference in the report itself - which is why in our first report, the headline read "New case on AE sanction handling"). So at this point in The Signpost, I don't think it would be helpful to change from mixed case to upper case. But I wouldn't have an issue with the use of redirect (for example, WP:RfC/U and WP:RFC/U still link to the same page). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the redirect WP:AESH to point to the case. WP:AEsh goes to the right place when typed in the search box, but WP:AEsh still appears as a red link on the page. If you favor the mixed case version as a clickable link, a second redirect would have to be created. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I don't think the mixed case needs to be clickable, but a few people might appreciate it all the same, so I've created the other redirect for now. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U[edit]

As you recall, we had a multipoint agreement that you memorialized when you closed the RFC/U. User Imazdi is now trying to reopen the entire battle by claiming he never agreed to those points. I think this is really hounding and counter-productive. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TreasuryTag[edit]

Thanks for your comments, and yeah ok, I've given up. Actually, I gave up when I saw this, after posting my last comment to the thread. TT is now not even pretending to want to help anymore. I've also posted a longer comment in reply to Onorem at the current IP talk page. --87.79.215.57 (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xeworlebi[edit]

I've added a comment at his talk page, which imho really sums up his precise problem. Imho, if someone has difficulties staying level-headed and polite (like he clearly does), they should at least know what they are doing (which in the case of his revert, he clearly didn't). I believe it's a dilemma many people know (myself included), but as far as I can tell, Xeworlebi is a hopeless case since he does not appear ready to appreciate any feedback on his behavior, let alone on the product of his behavior multiplied with his (at least partial) ignorance of grammar and formatting. At this point, I'm washing my hands off the whole thing. Still, I believe it is important to provide my feedback, since otherwise, I'd have to blame myself for not even trying to help Xeworlebi improve his wiki experience and that of his fellow editors.

A shame though that TreasuryTag ultimately succeeded in completely derailing the discussion without any negative repercussions for him (and thus no motivation to develop any insight into his failure to even understand the problem at hand and his general behavior).

At any rate, I'll keep gnoming, but the next time I run into someone like Xeworlebi, I'm afraid I'll just save my precious time and probably vent my anger much more directly and then quickly move on, seeing as another approach is completely impossible on Wikipedia. --87.78.137.176 (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2011[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ncmvocalist/Archive_8&oldid=1089980291"