User talk:Ncmvocalist/Archive 6

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

September 2009[edit]

Thank you for helping me out today. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giano ANI thread[edit]

I have provided some background, as requested. I hope it is useful. EdChem (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was very useful; thank you. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodgarton[edit]

Not really. It should probably be moved to AN. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 206 FCs served 08:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave that to you. :) Will respond to the message below later when I have a bit more time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Re: WP:WQA[edit]

Hello. Actually disputes at WQA have been resolved resulting in users being issued warnings in regards to violations of that particular policy. If the review of the alert finds that the user was indeed in violation of Wikipedia policy such as personal attacks and a warning was never issued, then the need to notify that user is necessary. I feel this should be appropriate to add to the overview becuase this does occur during a mediation process such as this. Thanks. --A3RO (mailbox) 04:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seemed that I edited some other version of an older WP:WQA page and it ended up in a dead discussion page. --A3RO (mailbox) 04:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, when I went to go edit it, I didn't know I was editng a template. --A3RO (mailbox) 04:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with your decision to remove the information, it still remains a legite resolution; irregardless if it escalates a dispute. Thanks and happy editing! --A3RO (mailbox) 04:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The page you are editing is for users who are posting an alert; they are involved, and if they issue warnings, they potentially escalate a dispute. It's always better for an uninvolved person to issue such warnings. It is absolutely not appropriate to add to that overview. As for users who are responding to an alert, that is part and parcel of the "discussion" component - WQAs should result in either the subject receiving a message of some sort on their talk page, or the filing party. Warnings are a final resort only and do not substitute simple reminders for established contributors, or other forms of discussion. Moreover, we don't only look for (or hand out warnings for) policy-prescribed conduct issues as suggested by what you inserted - discussion of general conduct issues not specified in policy is equally important. Finally, appropriate courses of action need to be taken for the circumstances of each case; we don't explicitly point out each and every way to resolve a complaint as we're just one step in DR. The resolved tag specifies the principle upon which a discussion can be marked resolved. If any user disputes a closure, then they have a choice of requesting it be reopened (if it's appropriate, that can happen - otherwise, no). If they still dispute the closure, then they can escalate the dispute from the WQA accordingly if it means that much to them - however, not complying with uninvolved opinion is usually not a good sign. Hope that helps. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In good faith, I will respect your decision. Every dispute is different and the edits involved can be deemed fit or unfit by the person reviewing them. Unfortunately, situations like this does happen. Thanks for your input. Happy editing! --A3RO (mailbox) 04:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GAN[edit]

Do you do reviews of articles at WP:GAN? If yes, do you have time to do R. K. Narayan? Looks like GAN is heavily backlogged, and I cna't find a list of reviewers or something to go by. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 20:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time at the moment. But I'll have a bit more time after another couple of weeks or so; if it still hasn't been reviewed by then, I'll try to take a look. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try checking with a couple of others, but I see no hope in finding a reviewer, so you might just have to do it in a couple of weeks. I'd like to take it to FA soon, therefore I'm trying to do this quicker than the normal "nominate and languish" process :) cheers -SpacemanSpiff 02:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got a reviewer in Drmies, so you don't have to worry about this :) cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 19:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom clerk question[edit]

Please see my request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Comment_by_uninvolved_Ncmvocalist - Manning (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :-) Manning (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1RR?[edit]

I don't understand why you're so keen to see disruptive editing where none exists. Have we interacted before? I'm familiar with your name but I don't think we've been involved before. I just fail to understand why you feel sanctions should be applied on me. Is it for some notion of being fair? Master of Puppets, who I have been in active disagreement with on several issues, doesn't seem to feel the same way. Why are two supported reverts, after discussion over several pages (due to Floydian), in any way deserving of a sanction? I would much rather not revert at all, yet I feel it helps the encyclopaedia. After two reverts I sought further input and reported Floydian to WP:AN3, correctly, and made no further reverts. Many would have gone to three reverts before escalating through the resolution process. Verbal chat 19:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully my post at the discussion clarifies your doubts or answers your questions; my post is there to keep the discussion centralised. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be pleased if your therefore made clear that I acted properly and deserve no sanction. Verbal chat 11:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I cannot please you, but if you acted properly, I would not be inclined to propose a sanction on you to prevent it happening again. 3RR and edit-warring are not the same thing; you have given all appearances that you fail to understand or accept that you've been edit-warring. Unless you voluntarily comply with what both Master of Puppets and I have quite clearly noted at the ANI, then you can expect that I would act on my inclination because such conduct is inappropriate (even in response to perceived or actual problem editing). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I acted properly. If you want policy to agree with your feelings you will have to change policy. I acted well within wikipedia norms, 3RR, and "editwar" policy. Two justified reverts, ever, supported by consensus, burden, npov, etc is clearly not edit warring, either slow or fast. I properly escalated to request administrator attention. However, the twice breaking of 3RR in response to multiple editors reverts, and refusing to engage constructively on the talk page (including blatant abuse), are what caused the "problem". If you "blocked" anyone following your spurious reasoning you would be quickly reverted. If this is an attempt at appearing "even handed" or "fair" then it is very, very poor. I do not accept your arguments or any restrictions you "feel" should be imposed but are not supported by policy. I fully understand policy in this area, and I understand that you are wrong, which is disappointing. Please review the policy and practice, and make proposals for changes as you see fit. Verbal chat 11:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava currently blocked[edit]

I don't know if you noticed that I blocked Ottava Rima last night: the phrasing in your comment suggests that you didn't.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware. Will take a look and modify accordingly. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I forget to thank you? ..[edit]

Ncmvocalist ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings.[edit]

Hi.

Since you are the person who initiated my recent topic ban, I invite you to participate in this discussion on my talk page. I am especially concerned that the people who supported my topic ban did not answer these particular questions that I repeatedly asked during the discussion of my proposed topic ban. I am very much interested in hearing your answers to these questions.

If you do not wish to participate in this discussion, you don't have to. If you wish to erase this comment from your talk page, you may do so. I will not post this message on your talk page a second time. This comment is meant as a request, and not a demand. Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody[edit]

I have reverted your changes to the above RFC. Firstly there was acceptance of Beeblebrox's close and secondly you dont get to come along and change it just because you want to do it a different way. Finally you misrepresented Beeblebrox's close my making it a comment. Spartaz Humbug! 12:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parties don't decide the outcome of an RfC/U. 6 opinions were expressed, not including mine; 3 were certifying parties so their opinions do not constitute final "acceptance around this close", and their talk page comments indicate issues with that close also. Beyond that, Peregrine Fisher has objected, and so have I as someone uninvolved. For you to then come along and revert with the frivolous reason "you have no right to come and change it without further discussion just because yu want to do it a different way" is grossly unacceptable. Please self revert. Finally, Beeblebrox's close is a comment or view, and I can quote Fut Perf's RfC/U as a precedent for that [1]. What can you use as precedent? That's right; there is none - your action is clouded by poor judgement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you are not the arbiter of the close. If you feel it should be different try proposing a form of words on the RFC talk page and then seeking a consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 15:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And neither are you - the consensus did not favour that close; it came about from the motion to close. Whether you are an admin or established editor, your refusal to self-revert is unseemly and certainly not in line with consensus-based editing. Again, please self-revert before someone else reverts for you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The close stood for two days and then you came along and changed it without seeking a new consensus on the change. Feel free to find a consensus by proposing a closing test but there was next to no activity in that talk page before you came along and arbiterily changed it. Tell you what. I'll revert myself if you them immediately revert what you did. Spartaz Humbug! 15:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Silence does not constitute a consensus, Spartaz. There is evidence of disagreement on the talk page from a couple of days ago. Similarly, no participation does not constitute agreement to close the dispute by the parties - if you actually cared to check the guidelines on closing RFC/U. So let's see - your action is not supported by the guidelines or any previous practice. Your own arbitrary say-so? Is this your general approach, or am I just incredibly lucky to see it for myself? In the meantime, yet another user who wanted to comment was unable to do so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What gives you the right to determine the consensus for the close there? Spartaz Humbug! 15:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But apparently you do? I'm amazed by your logic. Anyway, Protonk seems to sum it up well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before this spirals out of hand I've started a thread on the talk page suggesting that we just have a non-narrative close in order to put a bullet in this thing. I'm decidedly not married to the previous narrative close and I bet plenty of people would prefer a close with no statement (or would be indifferent between the two). Honestly its not worth the bother. Protonk (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grundle note[edit]

Thanks for the update. I'm trying to stay away from political articles for the most part. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Monitoring[edit]

Ncm, thank you for taking on this role, and for the significant time you've already invested. I'm wondering if you might be willing, or if it would be wise, for you to expand your role (or locate another party who might)? A review of the RFC/U editor's talk page, and the RFC/U talk page, will show you that the editor submitting the RFC/U is trying very hard to also advise the party in how to best participate in an RFC/U, and this is probably creating an additional complication and burden. Would you be willing to take on some of that role, so that the RFC/U can be as effective as possible towards resolving the issues, without the nominating party having to fulfill different roles? There has been a long-standing (years) dispute on that article, with multiple FACs and many editors involved, and my concern is that it will eventually end up at ArbCom, and the RFC/U editor might not fully understand how to most effectively participate in dispute resolution processes. Having dealt with those FACs, I also know that constant re-threading and formatting corrections will likely be needed, and close monitoring of the RFC/U may help keep discussion moving forward, intelligible, and on track. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. I have no problem with taking on that role also, as long as you bear in mind that I may not respond immediately to certain queries/issues due to my current level of online activity (that is, I may not be online more than a couple of times every 12-24 hours, so some issues will be outstanding for the periods of time in-between). If that's ok, then sure. :) I will also leave a note for the subject which may hopefully help. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; since you were the only editor who responded to the query at RFC, I think you're probably the most neutral and available editor around. The page may need a lot of following, though; I hope this isn't much of a burden. Thank you for offering to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No burden at all. I think it's come to the point where the only thing left for all parties to do is wait for input, whether uninvolved or involved. If it does (regrettably) escalate to ArbCom, it would only be because there was either an unwillingness or inability to resolve the dispute between one or more of the involved parties. I can try to urge Nancy to rewrite her response again if it'll help, but she seems to have made it clear that she'd prefer her approach despite being informed. Unfortunately, there's only so much we can do to prevent, or at least delay the inevitable from happening. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thanks for watching and helping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U revamp[edit]

OK, I've fixed/tweaked some things, looks about ready. Just want to check with you before I put it live. Rd232 talk 21:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Though I think I'd already made it live a couple of days before the 3 weeks were up...? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I seem to have missed that. Good then. Rd232 talk 16:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween![edit]

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg
Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Just curious what my block log has got to do with this. BigDunc 15:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You admitted that you were the anon who reverted one of Superfopp's reverts; your conduct (and any previous enforcement actions you've been subjected to) becomes relevant to any enforcement action taken now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been reported another editor was, doesn't matter what my actions were I didn't breach any restrictions. So why would it be relevant to mention it? Unless to try and muddy the waters. BigDunc 15:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The conduct of all parties is relevant in determining what enforcement action (if any) to take - you are most welcome to request clarification from ArbCom directly if you would like to maintain otherwise. Sometimes both parties (or even the filing party alone) ends up sanctioned. Just because you did not technically breach the letter of the restriction, does not mean you did not violate the spirit of them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And explain to me what is the spirit of 1RR? BigDunc 16:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Users who are editing under 1RR are...required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page (excepting obvious vandalism). Users who exceed the 1RR limit or fail to discuss a content reversion may be blocked. [emphasis added on the word "may"; note that the word is not "will"]. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop[edit]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf[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/Tothwolf/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/Tothwolf/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WQA closing[edit]

Hello, since the accused tried to inappropriately close the complaint about him submitted by another editor, I reverted the attempt[2]. On the other hand, if the report is gone stale, or a time to be wrapped up, since you're active in the area, I'm bringing this to your attention. Thanks.--Caspian blue 16:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, never mind. The case is already handled by Taelus.[3] --Caspian blue 16:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Reconsider[edit]

You've made this revert.

Please reconsider:

  • The edit is minor.
  • The edit does not add any new text or delete any text from the page.
  • The edit is purely visual.
  • The current table uses HTML instead of wikimarkup, a kind of code that facilitates ease-of-use.
  • This table is easier to use because it is located in the toolbar.
  • The edit does not change the meaning of the page.174.3.102.6 (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some (or all) of this may be true, but I reflected that that you need to demonstrate that you will follow the editorial process of consensus building rather than edit-warring, especially when changes to a Wikipedia guideline are being reverted (and being disputed at the relevant WQA). Let me know when there is a consensus to support this (or any other) change you want, OK? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please look carefully at the edits. This edit has nothing to do with my previous edits. Look at the change from a neutral point of view.
You don't seem to have as much of a problem with the edit as much as assuming bad faith on my part.174.3.102.6 (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a consensus to make these changes? It's a simple question to answer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changes to the page have been made with out consensus. You are judging me on something?174.3.102.6 (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you want to revert something, just say it, instead of ringing around the rosy saying I need consensus.174.3.102.6 (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming a tired pattern of you frivolously suggesting others are discriminating you for your failure to comply with the editorial process of Wikipedia. The changes you wanted to make have been disputed and reverted by several users (GaryKing, Nifboy, 4twenty42o, and Duae) - there is currently no consensus to make those changes. A user made a complaint at the WQA that you are still imposing changes by edit-warring, rather than coming to a consensus on the talk page, and I've responded to that complaint in my capacity as an uninvolved editor. My view aside, until there is a consensus to make your changes, they cannot be made - unless you want to be blocked in accordance with the warning that was issued to you here. Plain and simple. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that![edit]

--Paularblaster (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) But bear this section in mind (Wikipedia:RFC/U#Minimum_requirements) and these 2 pages (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance2). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My failure to AGF[edit]

Sikhye, Korean rice punch

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

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

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

WQA - Stale[edit]

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

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

Carnatic music[edit]

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

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

Completely agree with you[edit]

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

Carnatic music[edit]

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

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

Stale tag[edit]

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

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

Not a revert[edit]

Scuro is alledging that Doc James reverted me.[4] I placed a tag on a section to resolve copied and pasted text, so Doc James summarised it in his own words and then removed the tag which was no longer necessary. That is not a revert, he resolved the issue, the tag I added was no longer needed so was removed. That is not a revert but what I would expect after copied and pasted text from source issue was resolved.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Thank you[edit]

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

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

No findings regarding Physchim62 on Speed of light[edit]

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

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

Procedure[edit]

Durova removed your withdrawn section.[5] Is this the norm? Thanks. Ikip (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hai NCM...[edit]

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

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

Ola![edit]

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

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

Was this OK?[edit]

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

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

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

Rjanag Conduct RfC[edit]

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

The RfC can be found here.

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

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

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

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

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

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

Sanction clerks[edit]

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

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

Speed of light talk page[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please Note[edit]

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

Why are so many "people" insistent that they are not Naadapriya? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because for Ncm all who try to correct his POVs in CM are Naadapriyas. You try to correct his POV in CM. You will become Naadapriya to him. BTW it is interesting that you getting here. Any behind the scene acts. May be I should look into your past involvement with Ncm related to CM. !=Naadapriya 75.55.120.223 (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC) banned.[reply]
As you might recall, I first got to interact with Ncm (which is itself a familiar abbreviation used by Naadapriya) regarding the Carnatic Music article - some two years ago, I suspect. I also watchlist Ncm's talkpage, because we have worked together on many other issues since then. That is what happens on a collaborative project... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow now your adhoc involvement adds 2 +2. Yes, quick research in Wikipidia shows your similar involvement in blocking Naadapriya to help Ncm to edit CM peacefully (quote from one of your buddy Admn)! I did not know that intimate contacts with Admns help push POV. and block whoever corrects it. BTW I learnt the abbreviation NcM from his/her meatpuppet Mspraveen. Now I have started reading more about Naadapriya's unsolved case. FYI I picked up 'Admn' from Naadapriya case.  != != != Naadapriya 75.55.120.223 (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC) banned.[reply]
  • CU confirmed that it's banned user Naadapriya, and I've left it at SPI so that others have a central location to look should it happen again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policing and Crime Act 2009[edit]

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

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

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

DYK for Policing and Crime Act 2009[edit]

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

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

RFC/U closing?[edit]

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

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

I am a bit troubled by this edit. I believe that User:Ryulong started this RFC/U prematurely, after rejecting repeated suggestions for mediation, perhaps with the hopes of taking it to the Arbitrarion Committee. He is far more experienced than I am in these matters,[6] [7] [8] as I have not even been anywhere near involved in something like this before. I think that the process has been illumniating and reinforced the need to be mindful of NPOV. I agree with your closure, but it would be inappropriate for me to revert Mr. Ryulong and start another edit war. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom RFC[edit]

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

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

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


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

How best to close an RfC on a contentious topic[edit]

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

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

Please clarify at ANI[edit]

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

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

Amendment[edit]

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

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

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions that are imposed by admins[edit]

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

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

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

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

Your comments[edit]

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

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

Premature Alert Closure[edit]

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

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr[edit]

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

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

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

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

ArbCom election[edit]

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

what's goin on?[edit]

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

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

Notes[edit]

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Your comments at WP:AN (Logicus)[edit]

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:M. S. Subbulakshmi[edit]

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

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal[edit]

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

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

  • gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
  • ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're back[edit]

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

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Proposed decision[edit]

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

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

Comment on my talk page[edit]

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

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

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

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

Wrong place[edit]

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

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

AE[edit]

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

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

Mooretwin[edit]

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

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

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion[edit]

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread advice please[edit]

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

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

ArbCom case[edit]

Unwatched.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

CoM's block record[edit]

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

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

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

Until I come to the phase of writing up findings, I don't intend on moving this up on my priority list - evidence supports findings which supports remedies; principles should be able to stand on their own. I appreciate that some users might not understand the relevance of the principles without skimming the workshop page, and I also appreciate that you might have been involved in a dispute with CoM at one point and may be eager to see how I view these issues. But like I said above, I can't guarantee anything - I'll try compile something with what time I do have. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's where the compilation is at so far User:Ncmvocalist/ChildofMidnight; though again, until I have time for findings, I will not present this in evidence - should you wish to present evidence on the matter, you are invited to do so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but I was looking over your most recent proposals at the workshop page which are currently "incomplete" per your note at the top of them. Obviously I'll wait until you finish them until I comment, but I was confused by your assertion that Nihonjoe, who closed the RfC, "failed to follow the rules and guidelines for closing RfC/Us that existed at the time." What do you have in mind there, and will you eventually be specifying it on the ArbCom case page? The RfC had been open for 30 days, and there had only been 10 edits in the preceding 11 days (no new outside views were added during that time) so activity was obviously minimal enough to warrant a timely close. I don't see how the rules were not followed, though perhaps there was some minor oversight that I missed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In light of previous disputes and controversial issues that have arisen on such matters, the rules and guidelines were specified after multiple requests were made to clarify the manner in which RfC/Us are to be closed. Summaries or conclusions can only be used where an RfC/U is "closed due to other dispute resolution", or "closed by agreement" - but even in the latter instance, there needs to be a motion on the talk page, and if a close is disputed, then it needs to be closed as if it's been "closed due to inactivity" (i.e. without a summary). The circumstances of this RfC/U, including those you specified, as well as ChildofMidnight's disputing the summary, suggest that the RfC/U should have been "closed due to inactivity" in the first place, but Nihonjoe failed to follow the rules and guidelines that existed at the time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see what you're getting at, but I think there are a few mitigating factors here which you might want to consider:
  1. I don't think many people were aware of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing which is pretty recent and also has only been edited by you. Is there somewhere it was established that this was the way we would do things? The only discussion somewhat related to the summary issue in particular that I could find was here (which did not really clarify things) and from what I can gather there was no discussion either before or after you added a link to the new page describing how to close to the main page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. If that's true I'm not sure this has the force of policy or even of a guideline.
  2. The language in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Closing#Closing_due_to_inactivity does not explicitly say "do not write a summary," and if that was the intention then perhaps it should (again, assuming there is consensus that this is how we should do things, which at least so far I am not seeing). For an admin to close an "inactive" RfC and then fill in the summary section after reading the instructions provided is pretty understandable (i.e. the fact that a summary section is there by default rather suggests we should have one in all cases if possible, and the instructions do not prohibit it).
  3. The reason Nihonjoe ended up closing the RfC was because of the this request on WP:AN, wherein another admin noted "if there are any admins left who can considered themselves "uninvolved" it would be good they could do a summary and close it up." Presumably both the admin who posted the original note and Nihonjoe (as well as me and many others) were not aware that summaries had become verboten in certain RfCs, and indeed no one (even ChildofMidnight) objected to the fact that any summary was provided until you just did.
So if there is an error here (and without knowing the background of how you came to create the page on "closing" I'm not sure either way) it's a pretty trivial and understandable one I think, and I'm not sure how it's relevant to the ArbCom case (throw out the summary and the consensus of the RfC is still the same). Rather than get process wonkish over whether any summary was appropriate, it makes more sense to me to consider whether the summary that was provided was reasonable or not (you seem to think it was). Regardless, you should probably be more specific as to what you are getting at with the end of the proposed FoF, though I understand you might have been planning to do that. There are other problems with that proposed FoF in my view but this bit mystified me so thanks for explaining while you are still working on it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "i.e. without a summary" above, it should've read as "(i.e. without a disputed summary)" - sorry for missing the material word; my comment may make sense in combination with the following comment.
You're, I think, mistaken for the most part, but you're welcome to provide evidence to the contrary. A summary does not exist by default, so it is not "understandable"; Nihonjoe went out of his way to create it, even if it was on (unintentionally) ill-considered advice. The instructions state "Where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past." I genuinely didn't believe that either you or Nihonjoe or any other administrator or experienced editor required special assistance in gathering the inference to "only keep a summary if it is not disputed".
There are plenty of RfC/Us that have been run, and I've merely documented long-standing practice; if you'd like to disagree because you believe you have more experience with RfC/U practice, you're entitled to your opinion. But either way, where an admin has not taken the effort to appropriately review whether their close was appropriate and compliant with the rules and guidelines specified, after their close was disputed, then it is conduct that is relevant to a proposed finding of fact in this case. I'm really not seeing any mitigating aspect in the points you're raising. I don't recall a satisfactory percentage of RfC/Us where a summary was provided in a clear absence of agreement.
If participants waive their right to dispute a summary, then it would indeed be process wonkish to suggest any summary cannot be provided - for example, I'm confident there would have been no issue and ChildofMidnight's reaction would have been positive, had the summary simply (& more appropriately) stated "closed due to inactivity". That is not what happened here; ChildofMidnight explicitly noted that the close was poor; I'm not sure what is unclear about it, but nothing changed. On a separate matter, I wonder if you know why ChildofMidnight has practically not been participating in this case? The weight Ryan Postlethewaite placed on the summary was undue, giving the mistaken impression that extra obligations rest behind the single admin's conclusions. As you are the filing party, I can understand why you are satisfied with the summary provided. As an editor who is not so involved, my view is that although Nihonjoe's comment constitutes valuable advice, and does take up a lot of points that there were consensus on, it goes beyond that as well - agreement on a summary weeds this sort of issue out. However, exploring this point further will lead to circular arguments, so I've stuck with bare facts in my proposals.
In the scheme of just how many "wrongs" were committed with respect to one single user on Wikipedia, be it procedural or otherwise, as a result of insufficient care being taken by administrators in particular, I'm not sure how many more material issues are going to be dismissed as "trivial", but I don't think it can be ignored when a dispute has escalated to the last step in dispute resolution. I'll try to make the Fof clearer, but compared to the many glaring problems that exist with the proposed findings so far, I think this accounts more fairly for circumstances without mechanically and unduly grinding an axe in a single direction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

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

Unarchiving[edit]

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

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


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

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment[edit]

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

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

Talk:Daśāvatāra#Move_to_which_name[edit]

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

Grundle2600[edit]

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

What is the word limit?[edit]

I thought it was 500 words for the initial request, not for further comments. I shortened some.Likebox (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of what is enforced as the actual word limit these days, but I think 1196 is unreasonably over, as is David Tombe's 1400+, even if it is for further comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cut it down to approx. 700. Sorry, won't happen again.Likebox (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010[edit]


New case[edit]

You might want to file a whole new case on this, the behavior of this editor is a real problem and has been for quite some time.... Dreadstar ☥ 04:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned I won't have the time to see a whole case through, and on top of that, my interactions with him may have been too limited to warrant being the filer of a case, even though others might disagree on that secondary point. If an editor who has been more involved in conflict with him wishes to file a case, and has the time for it, I'd definitely assist them in framing the case - they're welcome to email me (but of course, must show the extent of their interactions with him with diffs). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I didn't see your wikibreak notice until right after I posted...and I totally understand..I have some real-life time-crunches coming up too. :) I just wanted to add my support to any further efforts in dealing with this problem. Hope your break goes well! Now back to reality. Dreadstar ☥ 04:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Community de-adminship[edit]

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption[edit]

I've locked some pages. Also I invite you vote in the latest photo poll YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!! Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice on whether I did this right[edit]

I have entered a new editing restriction at WP:RESTRICT based on my closure of a WP:AN discussion. Could you check if I covered everything? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, except 1 or 2 things. First, it's better to specify whether he is allowed to edit the talk page or not. The second is that when an editor is banned from a particular article (and/or it's talk page), they technically are under a "page ban" - a topic ban includes all pages in that particular topic. There was some controversy on the distinctions between the two, which I later clarified [9]. I think the only reason I'd put it under the "topic ban" was so that process wonkery didn't appear to invalidate the few old sanctions that incidientally might have used the wrong terminology. Other than those bits, I can't see that you've missed anything. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. I updated the entry in WP:RESTRICT. EdJohnston (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a good idea?[edit]

This edit summary is, I suppose, technically correct. But do you really want me to remember you as "that guy who for some reason thought it was a good idea to restore aggressive trolling by an editor who was about to be banned for just this sort of trolling"?  Sandstein  21:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that you would know by now that I have a high level of respect for you, but I did give it a lot of thought before restoring the edit (not just for the reasons stated in my edit summary). ChildofMidnight might've detracted from the point with the last sentence or 2, but the first 2 form genuine feedback that really should not be ignored. Deleting his comment and replacing it with mine, may mean less harsh rhetoric, but it would've been more harsh overall, with a greater amount of criticism. Maybe my expectations are too high, but your 2 most recent comments in that discussion really did not come up to par.
JN466 asked 2 questions prior to the first of these comments, and they were "I know you unblocked him once before, but do you see any desire on his part to contribute meaningfully? And do you endorse his accusations of racism levelled at the US State Department, the German Law Journal, and me personally?" Instead of answering these questions ("I haven't reviewed the merits of this matter at this time"), you misrepresented the comment as accusing you of "endorsing racism of any sort". A lot of care needs to be taken on a sensitive topic like racism, and although JN466 was extremely civil in his responses to you, this really could have gone another way, with rhetoric that far exceeds that used by ChildofMidnight. In your second comment, you acknowledged you had misread (which was good, but you didn't refactor your first comment), and then you misrepresented the next comment as charging you with "endorsing accusations of racism", when all it seems to have done is assumed that you read the relevant material, and expressed surprise that you didn't condemn the accusations. I note that you didn't refactor your comments after being alerted to this fact, nor did you acknowledge it in the thread.
You are of course welcome to choose which requests you will evaluate and which you will not, but if it's purely based on non-existent accusations and charges against you, then that's something that really adds to my disappointment. So to answer your question, it might not have been a good idea if you preferred me giving the feedback, but I think it was a good idea, both for the reasons in the edit summary, and as a means of letting you dispassionately reconsider feedback in its original form (and fwiw, it might even be setting an example for users like ChildofMidnight re: how to deal with criticism, even where that criticism might not be as constructive as that written here). I hope that makes sense, and that you don't take it the wrong way. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010[edit]

Discussion of Kmweber's editing restriction[edit]

Since you commented in the sub-thread WP:ANI#Specific question growing out of User:Kmweber's recent edits to an AfD page and his subsequent block and unblock, i wish to draw your attention to WP:ANI#Proposed modification of restriction of Kmweber where I have proposed that his restriction be modified as discussed the the "specific question" sub thread. Your views would be welcome. DES (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship[edit]

Ncmvocalist -- This non-urgent question can await your return from wiki-break.

1st try -- message was plausibly "puzzling" or too complicated


At best, this enquiry will serve as a tipping point which reminds you of favorable impressions; and your return to active participation will be timely.

At worst, this diff becomes the sound of one hand clapping.

The topic needing resolution is something to do with organizing? or structural planning?

This is a draft effort to use graphics as a tool in crafting a non-verbose response to Carcharoth's diffs here and here.

Please help me improve this with constructive criticism. What I construe as Carcharoth's main points are highlighted in yellow.

I plan to post the following in an ArbCom thread. Can it be made clearer? shorter? better?

If you please, I hope you will help resolve this situation by making a thoughtful comment at active ArbCom thread.

Note: The text highlighted in beige is already posted in the thread.

Arbitrator views and discussion
  • I note the comments of a few of the editors approached to act as mentors. I would like to know (a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations); (b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group; (c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors. In answer to the question above, Tenmei's six-month topic ban on the subject of Tang Dynasty begins once the mentorship is approved. Risker (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can't move forward until Risker's questions above are answered. Could a clerk please notify the editors who need to comment here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tenmei, if you want DGG to comment here, by all means invite him to do so. As for your comments about "raising the bar", it is not unreasonable for us to ask the possible mentors to lay out here what they see as their role in all this. I count, so far, Doc James and Kraftlos (of those you list) and in addition to this, Nihonjoe and Coppertwig. The layout at User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts is impressive, but there needs to be some indication of how this will work, otherwise this risks becoming a time sink if it goes wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tenmei, I'm supportive of you resuming editing with mentors, but please be patient and wait for other arbitrators and those willing to mentor you to respond here. I realise it must be frustrating for you, but if you wait just a little bit longer and let others speak, then we may finally get something workable set up here. We want this to work, not collapse because it was not set up properly. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hypotheticals
In theory, it is not unreasonable to ask hypothetical questions; but in practice, the attempt can easily devolve into a time sink.

Illustrating the point with a timely issue: Is there a constructive value in examining failures attributable to ArbCom — serial incidents in which ArbCom snatched defeat from the jaws of victory?

Can you suggest a better way to solicit your help in a specific context? I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thoughtful comments at Tang Dynasty. Perhaps this is a timely occasion to re-visit your own words in another context:
"Blocks ... have an unfortunate and horrible effect on anyone who is on the receiving end; the experience is not at all pleasant, and administrators and even arbitrators fail to truly comprehend the precise effect...." Ncmvocalist 15:58, 9 April 2009 diff
Thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My initial message is now collapsed. Mentors offered suggestions about how I could have written differently:

  • diff "I would suggest writing shorter responses ... and just in general not try to summarize the entire situation ...." -- Kraftlos 19:39, 18 March 2010
  • diff "I am learning to give people what they ask for. If they want more info, they'll ask for it ... [which] would be better than being flooded with information that must be sorted through. --McDoobAU93 00:40, 19 March 2010

Let's pretend I didn't send you the "1st try" message. Instead, let's assume this "2nd try" message is the beginning of an unanticipated new thread.

If you please, I want to ask for advice about one thing: I want to ask for comments about the use of format as a device (a) to focus my comments and (b) to limit the number of words.

Thank you for your willingness to help me to re-think a style of communication which is a barrier to my working collaboratively with other people in our Wikipedia venue. --Tenmei (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010[edit]

WP:RFC/U[edit]

Ncmvocalist, I see that you wrote Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. Who runs/manages/watches/decides questions at RFC/U? I ask due to seeing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tom Reedy. I don't think deletion of an allegedly improper RFC/U is in the purview of MfD, but if not, then where should the question be sent? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The short answers: Generally, concerns about whether an editor is qualified to be considered a certifying party are either made on the RfC/U talk page, and/or an admin noticeboard. That decision is therefore at the discretion of an uninvolved admin who turns up to respond to the deletion tag, or the community when its input has been solicited at the noticeboard. MfD is not the place (unless a whole lot of RfCUs have been sent there in the recent past without my knowledge).
The following context might be helpful. There is a rule at RfC/U (which has existed prior to my existence) that where an RfC/U does not meet minimum requirements, it is marked for speedy deletion with the db-maintenance tag after the 48 hour grace period. The purpose of that rule is to avoid letting the RfC/U process being unintentionally misused or deliberately abused (for example, to harass someone), and speedy deletion tends to cut the roots of misuse as soon as possible. Generally, this is left to the discretion of the uninvolved administrator who turns up to consider whether it is can be deleted. The most common reason RfC/Us are deleted is because there is only one certifier to the dispute even after 48 hours since the creation of the RfC/U. In some rare cases, it's because the parties agree to have it deleted for some reason. But these are clear-cut reasons. It's less clear cut with regards to whether an editor is sufficiently involved in the dispute (and has made sufficient attempts to resolve their dispute) to be considered a certifier. One generally (should) look at previous RfC/Us in the archive and see what diffs have been used in the "Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" and "Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute". On the one hand, if the evidence from a disputed RfC/U does not rise to the level of previous similar RfC/Us, chances are that it should be deleted. On the other hand, the community when making its views known in an RfC/U, may very well signal that either there is insufficient attempts at resolution or that the concerns are unjustified, making the whole RfC/U fall on its face anyway. So it's an individual admin's judgement at the end of the day (or the community can decide the question at an admin noticeboard), but in placing the deletion tag, an admin is basically asked to step in to stop RfC/U being misused, be it unintentional or otherwise. RfC/U is the second last step in dispute resolution, which is why it's for relatively serious stuff.
I'm not sure how useful that is, but I hope it helps - and feel free to ping me if I can assist further. :) Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary agreement[edit]

Hi, I have read your proposal for a voluntary agreement. In general it is fine with me however I propose a small addition to the text on the lines that the agreement becomes binding only when both parties sign it.  Dr. Loosmark  16:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind setting up a separate agreement if you prefer that, although, I'd pose the same reply to you as I did to Matthead here. Do think about it, but let me know if you'd still prefer it to only be binding if Matthead signs so I can set that up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'd prefer the agreement be binding if he signs it too, otherwise it's just not fair. I have also seen his reply to your proposal and I honestly find it appalling. He refers to me as a "foreigner". On wikipedia nobody is a "foreigner", we are all here to build an encyclopedia together, whether one is from Japan, Chile or Zimbabwe it should not matter the least, what counts is the quality of their contribution(s).  Dr. Loosmark  12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-assessing Prize (law)[edit]

Hi. I've done some work on the Prize (law) article initially assessed as "stub class" and I am hoping somebody might see fit to change its label. I haven't changed it myself because editors ought not to assess their own work.FrederickFolger (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. FWIW, it may warrant a higher grade (would need to look at it more closely), but better to go for WP:GA or WP:FA rather than worry between C or B class. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for having a look at it. Just as well it didn't get a higher grade, or I'd be tempted to call it done and go play with something else. Best wishes.FrederickFolger (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, good luck! :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoRight[edit]

Declined and reverted. Only thing inappropriate is GoRight's conduct; nothing changes with respect to WP:RESTRICT.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have restored the following [10]. Please refrain from refactoring anything to do with me, and when you do refactor things please be more careful not to drop entire sanctions as you appear to have done here. Between Trusilver and 2/0 this wording is complete, accurate, and should remain unchanged. Thank you. --GoRight (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that you have moved it to an inappropriate venue rather than having lost it. These sanctions were not imposed as part of the probationary process as far as I am aware. Regardless, there was a public discussion of what the final warding was to be and the agreed upon location to log it was WP:RESTRICT so moving it completely out of that location is not correct. Please refrain from further "adjusting" and "refactoring" and anything to do with me as your assistance in these matters is not required. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware of [11] --GoRight (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. [12] [13] [14] Only thing inappropriate here was GoRight's conduct, from the outset. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on your comment[edit]

AN @ 04:46 21 Mar 10 UTC: ehemm personal cough attack? Perhaps you could rethink that a bit. Franamax (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it rose to that level, but I agree that it would be better reserved for another location, if it continues that is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ncmvocalist/Archive_6&oldid=1091527840"