Jump to content

User talk:Ncmvocalist/Archive 9

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

Welcome to the team!

[edit]

Glad to see you at the Signpost! I wanted to welcome you aboard and thank you for contributing. Good luck! —mono 21:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome! :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

[edit]

Disruptive editing by editor 75.2.209.226 and his socks

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.[1] The discussion is about the topic Seeking admin assistance for disruptive editor. [2]. Thank you. Eurytemora (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You on ANI

[edit]

You have been mentioned on ANI here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section was blanked by NuclearWarfare here [3]. DuncanHill (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ncmvocalist, please consider undoing your revert of the close, or consenting to a reclose or some other drama-minimal closure. The closing bureaucrat had a valid policy-based reason for doing so.--Milowent (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They did not - see administrator policy. If anyone wants to escalate, they need not resist the temptation merely because I did. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to give you credit for having major cojones as an editor, but I see it as a very bad move in this case.--Milowent (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was in recognition of what policy says (admins can choose the process they want) and I was respecting Herostratus' criteria that requested admins don't participate. See also what I said here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Full marks for trying. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks!

[edit]

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. Elockid (Talk) 11:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something you may wish to know of,

[edit]

Per my watchlist, and several popups, I noticed you were reverting/redacting the edits of a banned user. To that end, please see the template I created, {{Banredac}} which can serve that purpose.(note it must be substituted, please see the template page for more info). Cheers! — Dædαlus Contribs 05:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

[edit]

This tool article

[edit]

Hi, Mario hasn't been online for some time. I think now is the time to act, and I'm unconcerned about the niceties and protocol when we can easily solve a significant problem. I'm not great on tools; do you have enough knowledge to prioritise what this week's might be? Could this wretched Dispatches problem be solved by simply creating a new "story" page so there's no political baggage? Can you let me know if you think this is possible and we could ask HaeB. Tony (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a PS about the Arb report. Will you consider using a singular title ("Open case") when there's only one item? Do we need "recently" under the "Motions"? And do we need "this week" at the top, and "During the week", under "Other"? Like F and A, I wonder whether the default assumption isn't always that the report concerns what has happened since the last Signpost edition. It would be neater, IMO. I'll have a go now; see if you like these minor changes. Tony (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it should not have been a plural title - I think it got carried over from last week by mistake. The 'recently' was just to signal that the motions aren't something that were done like a day after the previous report, but really quite recent (a bit like hot news off the press). But seeing there's so much of it this week, I don't mind letting that go in this issue. I think we'll have to look at the week thing on an issue-by-issue basis because there are occasions where I think it should be kept, but this is not one of them, so the changes are fine. Though, I prefer the word quantity in regards to the case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before you launch in

[edit]

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

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

Meh

[edit]

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

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

WQA

[edit]

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

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

Waste not ...

[edit]

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

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

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

[edit]


The Signpost: 18 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

[edit]

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

[edit]

Pending

[edit]

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


Your question

[edit]

I'm happy to answer it, but I think it's supposed to be on this page [5] with all the others. looks better if you move it rather then me.  Giacomo  15:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

More on Signpost

[edit]

Please could you include a statement in Signpost about ArbCom lifting my topic ban early without being asked? There's probably no need to mention your own personal participation in that process.[6] Just for reference this is what I sent you in an email:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Members

[edit]

After this: WP:AN#Is there a way of finding out when an account was created? I've done some clearing up - see the talk page. See also [7]. I've stopped now, it's not worth my time. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Happy, happy

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

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

[edit]

Arb report 10 Jan 2011

[edit]

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

You've been warned several times about your edit-warring on Signpost articles (HaeB warned you more than once) - including your editwarring on the arbitration report. This is your final warning; knock it off. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to let the report turn into a circus as a result of your childishness, so if you continue to edit in the way that you have been, you might as well find another report that you can actually make useful or quality contributions to. I'd so far been working under the assumption that you are ready to work together after seeing your note last year in the Newsroom; so far, you have been furthering an impression that suggests otherwise which has prompted me to raise this with HaeB. I don't believe you have taken the time to think about what you have done or the fact that you need to get your act together. I'll be waiting to hear from HaeB as to if and when that you do. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gosh, I'm really trembling in my boots (not). You rattle your sabre at someone else, please. I don't need you to tell me Haeb is equally unimpressed with both of us. I hope he asks us both to leave Arb Report. I'm outta here. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This should be added to the list of lamest edit wars. In order to avoid you both getting blocked due to your egos, I would highly suggest you simply remove the credit line to end this ridiculousness. --slakr\ talk / 11:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

[edit]

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

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

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

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

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

[edit]

Good close

[edit]

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

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

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

[edit]

Weekly arbitration report

[edit]

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

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

Re: Wikiquette alerts

[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

[edit]

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

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

R3ap3R.inc

[edit]

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

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

On the ruling

[edit]

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

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

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

[edit]

Help needed

[edit]

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

Talkback

[edit]

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

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

[edit]

Hm...

[edit]

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

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

Your comment at Arb. request

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

Well Done!

[edit]
A very manly man, just like you!

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


Keep up the great work!


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

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

[edit]

Suggestions?

[edit]

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

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

My suggestion is to reconsider what you are saying/typing before submitting it. If you can't be sensitive to the concerns expressed by someone else, just avoid responding altogether; it's not necessary to announce your disengagement before disengaging. If you had a concern with the user's conduct, you were right to take it to the user's talk page on the first count; however, your edit summary (and manner of communicating) on that first edit, as well as your second edit [9] (even though you self reverted on the third), as well as every other edit after that made it certain that it would not end well. What's the point of posting to the user talk if that's destined to be the outcome as a result of the way you worded it? What's the point in being offended if you think there are trolls responding in the initial discussion? Take a holistic review of your entire approach through this incident and consider how your edits can be interpreted by others (based on what you have seen from this incident) - consider your own position if some other editor acted like you in response to your edits (but instead of addressing you as a veteran admin, he addresses you as an editor who has been here since 2007); how would you respond? What changes (if any) would that editor need to make to his/her comments/acts so that the dispute could be resolved more amicably? I realise my response isn't as specific as might be desired, but I hope it helps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the further discussion at the alert page brought up an interesting essay, WP:BAIT. I allowed myself to be baited by SmD's "parting shots" every time he "closed" the discussion. Honestly, if he weren't an admin I would have ignored him and his provocations on the original talk page, but he never held anything approaching the "high ground" in that discussion. I agree that the reversions and persistence were inappropriate, but that's all I regret. I should have just taken it directly to WP:WQA after the initial reversion. SDY (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
You have new messages (last change).

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

Your revert at WP:GS

[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you reverted a format change I made to WP:GS. I'd appreciate your input about why you think this change was not a good idea at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Archive 1#Sanctions display format. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

[edit]

Al-Kindi

[edit]

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

Assessment

[edit]

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

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

[edit]

Mathsci

[edit]

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

NithyasreeMahadevan.jpg

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Arbitration case

[edit]

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

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

Signpost article

[edit]

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

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

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu Tip

[edit]

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

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

Re: Recent removal on my talk page

[edit]

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

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

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

[edit]

YogeshKhandke and Fowler

[edit]

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

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

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

[edit]

RFC/U

[edit]

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

Just to notify you

[edit]

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

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

[edit]

AEsh

[edit]

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

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

RFC/U

[edit]

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

TreasuryTag

[edit]

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

Xeworlebi

[edit]

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

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

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

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

[edit]

AE

[edit]

Hello Ncmvocalist. If you wouldnt mind, I would like to discuss some of your comments at AE. Your talk page or mine, or nowhere at all, up to you. nableezy - 03:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My responses may be especially delayed/slow until after next weekend due to busyness IRL, but if that isn't a problem, sure. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine, I got two months. To begin with, you wrote that If someone is misbehaving in this area, use the mechanisms I referred to above sooner - even if this swallows up a bit more time/effort than any of us would like to spend. You are right, but you have to understand that many of us have been dealing with the same crap coming from the same people for years now. Roadblocks are routinely put up to stop content that certain people dislike from being included. For example, I was banned or given some other restriction for ~4.5 months over a completely non-controversial issue, that being the inclusion of a sentence along the lines of Israeli settlements are considered illegal under international though Israel disputes this be included in the articles on settlements. It took me 2 years to get what should have been done in 20 minutes actually implemented. The reason this took so long is that a set of accounts filibustered to no end, removing sources and content they disliked and demanding that we go through another process, another discussion, another rfc, so that this mythical "consensus" could be achieved. These users routinely lied about sources, reverted completely neutral and well sourced material, did anything they could to prevent the inclusion of this non-controversial fact from being included. After dealing with that kind of crap for so long, some of us, meaning me, get fed up and are unwilling to continue, as you said at AE, "jumping through hoops". Now, to the current issue at Ramot. An editor who has for some time now followed me around to inhibit my attempts to include well sourced material in articles repeatedly reverted a sentence in that article, citing "no consensus". That, I admit, is a reason that pisses me off. It is a user saying I do not like this but I do not have a real reason to remove it. Yes, I should have opened an RFC at that point, but I shouldnt have to go through these time wasting procedures because some random fool on the internet thinks its cool to annoy me. It should be enough that I have brought source after source after source to support my edit, they should not be able to just say there is no consensus and block any material they dislike. I should not have to waste another month on an RFC to include a well documented fact in an encyclopedia article. These efforts are plainly meant to filibuster the inclusion of material not to the liking of a certain set of users. And like filibusters in the US Senate, they are only time wasting tactics, they are not honest arguments. I dont have much patience for that type of crap, and I shouldnt have to be patient with it. I know administrators cannot judge content, but they can look at what is happening in the articles. Just look at the reverts made at Ramot. One editor completely removes a section dealing with the status of that settlement in international law (here) because it is "political". That diff alone should result in a ban. That is a purposeful degrading of an encyclopedia article, it should be treated as vandalism. All of my reverts, all of them, were adding well sourced material. Material that is undisputed except by a few wikipedia users. But because they "dispute" this we have to jump through these hoops. It is, in my opinion of course, asinine that an administrator just looks at X user made Y reverts in Z days, he gets a topic ban. Look at what is being reverted, look at who is degrading the quality of the articles. One of the biggest problems that I see with wikipedia is that too many people think the process matters more than the product (that being the actual content of the articles). That it is more important that users dont revert too much than it is that they dont add bullshit to article or remove well sourced, on topic, neutral material. I dont subscribe to this view and I think that such a way cannot lead to the creation of an encyclopedia. One of the WP:Whatever pages says that wikipedia is not a social experiment, it is a project to build an encyclopedia. If that is true there needs to be a fundamental change in how this place is administered. Starting with admins who actually look at the reverts and dont just count them on their fingers. nableezy - 19:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not a great fan of some of the revert rules, but obviously many people disagree and think it is really important so you have to be aware of that. I have left another brief comment at the AE FWIW; not sure why the involved users are reluctant to file a clarification request - it may be more beneficial than not (as long as it is framed correctly), and I have given suggested questions. But yeah. I appreciate that you don't have much patience for somet hings (many people know I do not like excess bureaucracy), and in areas which aren't subject to this type of regime, it may not be such a problem...but that's a hypothetical, seeing this area is in fact subject to this regime. More later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctance to go to arbcom for a clarification? I think you have much more faith in arbcom than many of us. I dont have any personal experience with that body, but I read ARBPIA and watched West Bank/Judea&Samaria play out. In my opinion arbcom has only made things worse. In WB/JS there were 3 users accounts (2 actual users, we'll get to that) involved on the "I side", 4 on the "P side" (I use quotes because the argument that using "West Bank" means somebody is a "pro-P" editor is so utterly stupid that I cannot fathom that anybody accepted this for a minute). On the "P side" there were 3 editors who made a handful of reverts over months. On the "I side" 2 accounts (1 user) was responsible for most of the reverts. Instead of detecting that one of the more prolific sock-puppeteers and edit warriors on WP was using 2 accounts during an arbitration case and was responsible for ~70% of the edit warring that took place, arbcom saw fit to indefinitely topic ban everybody involved, on, pardon my french, trumped up bullshit (the in repeated and extensive edit-warring line was applied to all, regardless of if they made 3 reverts in 3 months or 3 in 30 minutes). They then provided a path to allow for an editor to have their topic ban lifted, a path that anybody could see was tailor made for one of the involved editors, given his well known ability to create FAs on other topics (to be clear, I dont hold that against him, he is a very good writer, but the others did not have the history to make such a path seem like a realistic possibility). So, right now, the total result of WB/JS is as follows. One of the "pro-I" editors had his topic ban lifted. The other two accounts belonging to one user have never left us (see here). The four accounts banned for supporting what eventually became a naming convention with consensus (here) are the only ones that are not editing. I can only speak for myself, but watching how that process played out does not give me much faith in it. nableezy - 17:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign WQA closings

[edit]

I'd appreciate if you'd sign WQA closings. As your a neutral reviewer if I see you've signed them I don't feel any need to review what's said -- sometimes participants in the WQA will (attempt to) close them with biased comments. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly respond

[edit]

Hello,

Since you took the initiative to drop by my talk page and advise me regarding my conduct, I would appreciate it if you would do me the courtesy of responding to my subsequent question. [11]

Thank you

Aquib (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done; thank you for making me aware of the reply. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mibelz AE request

[edit]

Thank you for your input. The problem is that Mibelz seems to ignore the talk page. Two other editors have commented there, agreeing with me so far; yet he has not only ignored AE thread, but also just now reverted another editor on that article - still not bothering to join us at talk. I am afraid that if one of us reverts him, he will just (again) revert, and keep doing so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have left him a post (and a diff at the AE). Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ncmvocalist, I would like to tell you the problem is that some Polish editors, i.e. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, prefer rather Polish than English names (for example: Kraków, not Cracow) in English Wikipedia, and often ignore historical facts which are inconvenient for their point of view. As a scientist, I am interested in truth, not propaganda. -- Warm regards, User:Mibelz, Ph.D. 13:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

[edit]

Hi

[edit]

I'd like to let you know that I feel you're being biased against me, and I feel your closure on both requests was extremely unfair. I'd like to ask you to undo your closure on both requests. If I were in your shoes, and somebody would have said to me, they feel I am biased, and asked me to undo my closure on requests involving them, I would have done it because it is a right thing to do.Everything else is up to you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your allegation of bias is remotely justified, much like some of the other comments you have been making in those WQAs, and other venues. It seems you have still failed to voluntarily addressed your problematic approach when interacting with other users and this is not a sign of resolution; it is a strong indication that the final resort of DR is likely to become necessary in the near future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't? OK, let's see. You supported my last block that was imposed by the canvassed administrator, and how about that: The block and following bans was by my request reviewed by administrator AGK, who found my comment to be "of value", and "Daedalus' complaint about my comment" to be "without merit". administrator AGK conclusion was: "I disagree with the block and with the continuation of the ANI etc. restrictions".
So as you could see I proved beyond doubt your bias and your unfairness toward me.--Mbz1 (talk)
No you have done anything but prove that there is bias or that you are being treated unfairly. You have shown evidence of an editor requesting that an administrator review evidence towards enforcing that restriction. In the links you have provided, AGK specifically noted that you have made allegations which were not substantiated regarding involvement, that he is disappointed by your behavior which would warrant interaction bans in the first place, and there were other problems with your approach throughout the escalation. That he disagreed with the block is a very different matter to what you are alleging; in particular, he carefully notes that his opinion is based a lot on what you have told him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of experience, accusations that an uninvolved user is biased are usually without merit. Mbz1, please consider if there is any merit to the two WQA threads in question, and further consider what you can learn from the comments made there. There is scope for all editors to improve, and it would be more helpful to proceed with the view that the requests are educational, not conspiring. Also, it would be prudent if you were to make a measured attempt to abstain from coming into contact with User:Roscelese, because that would make it easier in future to determine the accuracy of any claims you make of this nature. On an unrelated topic, when I evaluated your block and ban for you, Mbz1, in March 2011, I advised you then that you had not substantiated your claim that Gwen Gale was biased with regards to you. Here, an editor has again closed conduct proceedings that concerned you, and you have again claimed that they are involved. If this is to become a pattern, then know that this kind of behaviour is precisely the sort that is favoured by a good majority of the editors who have entries in the "Log of blocks and bans" found at the bottom of every arbitration case page. I cannot help but feel that you must change how you interact with your fellow editors. Regards, AGK [•] 21:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After I explained to AGK the real situation with my comment about Gwen Gale and WQA he said this. I asked him to clarify the message he left at this talk page but he refused. I am sadden about the comment the admin left at this talk page without prior understanding of the issue. I am sadden even more by his refusal to clarify this comment after he was explained the situation, but mostly I am sadden that the admin, fairness of whom I have been always sure of, has betrayed my trust. His unwillingness to respond my questions is an unwillingness of a person, who knows, he's wrong, but refuses to admit it. So it be. This post here is only for the record. I am taking this talk page off my watch list.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Philip_Baird_Shearer

[edit]

Hi. There seems to be a certification issue at this RfC (see PBS's response and see the discussion on the talk page). Could you take a look and comment there? --rgpk (comment) 13:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

[edit]

Apology

[edit]

Hi Ncmvocalist, may I please ask you to accept my apology for mistakenly accusing you in hounding my contributions? I did not notice the difference in WQA you pointed out to.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI mention (not negatively)

[edit]

You were mentioned at WP:ANI#User Terra Novus - topic ban may need revision to include other controversial areas. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know; would've missed it otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk)

RfC

[edit]

Hi Ncm, please don't move comments around on the RfC. It's best to leave things as people wrote them. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, I suggest you familiarise yourself with how RfC/Us are run and stop trying to create your own rules because you want to make a point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you are both making a mountain out of a molehill. As I explain on the RFC/U's talk page, he location of these comments is IMO unimportant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's going to be no end to the level of IAR which is invoked in DR if people start chipping away at the basic safeguards that exist at RfC/U as well; no wonder it's these same people who say it's a circus. Apparently there's no need for consistency, there's no issue that a certifier is pulling this stunt when there's a whole 2 weeks left to go and the subject is absent, and there's no issue that an involved admin is edit-warring with an uninvolved user who was keeping things in compliance with those basic rules. Whatever.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NB that I don't say there are no problems at that RFC/U; I only say that IMO that the location of this particular comment is too unimportant to fight over.
I am concerned about the lack of substantive response from PBS, who has made only five edits to en.wiki since the RFC/U began. If PBS is unable to respond (e.g., out of town, internet connection down) then we should think about suspending it until he's back. If (like many people before him) he's merely taking a break in the hope that it will all blow over if he keeps a low profile for a few weeks, then we should think about how to address that, too. I want the dispute really, truly, completely resolved (preferably in a way that sends everyone back to useful work sooner rather than later). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On its own it might seem like unimportant, but this isn't a one-off issue; it's merely a reflection of more problems to emerge in the near future. When confronted with the possibility that this admin is refusing to heed the "no, you need to take a step back", her response is to tell them stay out of it, stop discussing, and that she has common sense...even though it is a *surprise surprise* request for comment from others, and not her highness. Now another editor is doing the same thing as she did, except in response to an admin who's raising a similar concern on the talk page. Still, having recalled her attitude and approach throughout other RfCs and arbitration matters, to think of a few, I think you are naiive in wanting proper resolution; I don't see that emerging during this charade. But good luck, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I share your skepticism about a true resolution via the RFC/U. I currently think it unlikely, and my belief that it is even possible decreases with every passing day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


WP:AE

[edit]

Thanks for your note. I had missed your question. I've responded now.   Will Beback  talk  04:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

[edit]

Yes - thanks for the advice I will use it for future reference - I noticed an attacking accusation only after some time and wanted to reply in situation, so to speak. Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

[edit]

Your comments

[edit]

Re. [12]: please stop making dark insinuation about what "some admins" do; if you must talk about this case (of which you evidently know nothing), then please have the kindness to only talk about what I actually did. You will find that except for the block of Sadbuttrue92 (talk · contribs), not a single admin action of mine was ever cited as problematic in the whole case. – Also, your final sentence sounds like you are accusing me of lying. This is a serious matter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I actually found was that you have made some good calls, usually with good intentions, but you are also among a few admins who have failed to comply with important parts of admin policy which I already linked to; that you seem to fail to fully appreciate that concern, yet assert words to the effect of "I know what is expected of me by others", is not a sign of great judgement on this matter either. In that final sentence, I was asserting that you are incorrect about me not knowing anything about the case; if you did indicate a "routine-only" willingness (and those 2 arbs weren't in the minority on that point), you would have seen that support reflected in the PD; such majority/minority dynamic, which you should have appreciated by now, is probably going to conclude this amendment request too.
By the way, I appreciate that final sentence might have seemed a little unclear on the surface, and it may have been reasonable to interpret that I was disputing the accuracy of what you said, but that is very different to suggesting you are being deceptive. If you found you are reading something too negatively, a better solution might be to step back and read what is being said in a less negative light, and respectfully seek clarification to resolve any remaining doubt. Alternatively, producing a relevant diff could also counter that belief, given that it is unwise to rely on off-wiki communications here. Frankly, I was just clarifying what I thought was ironic in regards to the dynamic which will probably resolve this, so the ominous "your final sentence sounds like you are accusing me of lying. This is a serious matter." was unhelpful. Perhaps you should modify your approach to misunderstandings in the future, since that type of message that can escalate disputes for no good reason. I think you're too quick to insert your own unhelpful assumptions when reading what others have written and this comment of yours is yet another example of you losing perspective in an incident where you are involved. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone of smug self-complacency is unbearable. There was no "misunderstanding" here: I very clearly made a factual statement about what I know I personally did back at the time. You made a statement – and repeated it here – which grammatically entails you believe that my statement was untrue. There is no way for it to be untrue other than a deliberate lie. You just accused me of being a liar, twice.
There is no way I could continue this conversation that wouldn't be a personal attack on the moral quality of your character, so I will stop here, and only request of you to never talk to me, or about me, again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not accused you of being a liar at any point in time, so please stop falsely making allegations to that effect. If this is the type of response you give to editors who express a concern over your approach in matters where you are involved, that is a serious problem, and I've noted this at the amendment request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

[edit]

Disruptive editing

[edit]

If you reinstate the content on your userpage which was removed, edit-war on any page (including my talk page), mischaracterise edits as vandalism, or engage in further incivility, you will be reblocked. I notice you have been given yet another warning above for similar problematic editing in other areas, so I will phrase this in no uncertain terms: please cease editing disruptively if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I just don't see your threats as credible, given that you've repeatedly vandalized my user page. Please stop. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've left 24.177 a note that she should stop describing your edits as vandalism. You, however, Ncmvocalist, should leave the IP's userpage alone. Unless any content there actually violates a policy, 24.177.120.138 is entitled to keep it. In the interest of heading off a stupid dispute, please just leave it alone. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before I get my trowel out and start digging, this IP has admitted to "crossing paths" with me in the past, and then coyly backed away when I pressed for details. Right at the top of my userpage I use the terminology of "crossing paths", and it's not meant in a good way. This edit summary: inappropriate. A "list" of vandalism to their talk page by editors who are not actually vandals is also inappropriate. I'm still waiting for the IP's candid responses, but I'm not holding my breath. This is either an editor who is currently blocked, or one who retired in a huff and is attempting a WP:CLEANSTART. The problem is that a clean start clearly mentions that "avoiding scrutiny" isn't exactly kosher. I've seen Ncmvocalist around for a long time, and this IP editor for not so much time. I agree that the dispute is stupid, but I don't think that dispute truly lies at Ncmvocalist's door. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 06:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This edit [13] is also pretty enlightening. Dayewalker (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ten years or so? Right. Which troll is it is the question, really... Doc talk 07:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, have fun with that. You see the thing is, you're welcome to suspect whatever you want about me, but unless you can prove I'm actually currently blocked, all you're doing is being WP:RUDE. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24 is doing his best to paint himself into a corner, but I don't know that there's any rule prohibiting giving oneself Barnstars as he has done (is there?), especially when they're clearly satirical. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only gave myself one of those barnstars. A sock of User:Francis E Williams gave me the other. I'm confused by your repeated references to corners: I didn't think Wikipedia had any? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I always enjoy getting awards from socks. As for corners, just look at your screen. In my case, I count 4. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could help the user put his edit history together ..... its more fun than

24.177.120.138 19 Feb Till now -

24.177.120.74 30 Jan- 18 Feb -

24.177.123.74 9 Jan - 30 Jan -

prior to 9 Jan...? Off2riorob (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U advice

[edit]

I saw your name on the RfC talk page a lot, so I thought you might be able to offer me some advice. A few editors (including me) have started an RfC/U here. Would substing a message like this one on other involved users' pages be considered canvassing? I didn't think so, but I want to be sure lest I jeopardize the RfC. Thanks, Coemgenus 13:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll try it that way. --Coemgenus 21:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom and scope

[edit]

Thanks for that. I really could do without wasting time fighting an old battle, only to find arbcom couldn't give a rat's arse about it. Clarifying the scope is exactly what's needed.--Scott Mac 22:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee opened

[edit]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]
Hello, Ncmvocalist. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive703

[edit]

Actually, you're wrong even with your own edit summary reference. The "CLOSED" section, preserved as an archive not to be edited, is "Block log of Mbz1" section and not the entire archive. The notice reads "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows." That notice, as evidenced by the notice itself, does not apply to different sections of the same archive. I was within my rights to comment on the archived section regarding a dispute with which I was involuntarily involved! If all the sections were closed, they would ALL be included in the box surrounding the notice! Unless you can point to a specific WP rule or policy which forbids editing an archive altogether (which would really make that notice on that one section superfluous, wouldn't it?), please refrain from improperly revert editing (and selectively doing so as some edits apparently escape your notice?)! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjprochazka (talk • contribs) 04:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except to unarchive threads which are still being dealt with by admins, you should not alter archives by adding comments. The closed sections/template are for discussions which were archived on the main page earlier, but were not moved by the archiving bot until later (but the bot does not remove the template). You will find that this was unarchived as the issue was still active and being dealt with by an administrator; this is why the other user's comment was moved in the same thread. In your case, you were adding a comment in a matter which was inactive and archived (and your insertion of the comment was altering the archive). Archives merely reflect the content/discussion that took place at the time at which it was active. As you will note, an administrator Larry V also did something similar [14]. As he is an administrator, you may wish contact him if you still have any queries or require further clarification in relation to this. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrator

[edit]

Hey, thanks for your edit here [15]. I'd like to talk more about this. Do you think we can discuss it on the talk page rather than through edit summaries? Regards, --causa sui (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

I've replied to your comment on my Talk page. -- Avanu (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded and noted. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

I'd appreciate if you would stop being so aggressive. It should be possible to disagree without personal attacks, particularly in edit summaries. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ncmvocalist. My original closure of that section yesterday was a {{discussion top}} (I think Nuclear Warfare changed it to {{hat}}?) Anyway, {{discussion top}} and a link to the active discussions is a reasonable compromise, IMO. 28bytes (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that the entire purpose of closing the thread will be lost, given how strongly some users feel (those affected, in particular, which can range from particular editors, to admins, to arbitrators). If what this situation has indicated is anything to go by, there is a greater chance of editing right through a plain discussion topbox than there is when the discussion is collapsed. An alternative is moving the discussion to the original venue, which I don't have a problem with and you're certainly able to move it in that way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not an unreasonable concern. But hopefully people will be lured away by the link at the top, where they can find an active discussion. 28bytes (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hopefully. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, User:Berean Hunter is not, never was, and most likely never will be an admin. 174.253.144.37 (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm not an admin. I closed it because I felt it was the wrong venue and because it was dealing with just one of what will probably be many issues. I certainly do think that people will need to discuss and it would be best, in my opinion, if they keep it all together in one place if possible...preferably at WT:ARBCOM. I agree that ANI isn't the right place.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just fixed that for accuracy/consistency; I tend to refer to people as uninvolved users rather than by their status in privileges, but I think I made an oversight here because I was concerned about conduct and adherance to admin policy by the admin I was responding to. Agree that a discussion will be required regardless, but ANI was merely not the venue for it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

[edit]

Cryptic comment

[edit]

I've just read this comment and I can't make head or tail of it. I've seen you make oblique comments like this before, where you make vague references to some previous set of actions that you obviously have in your mind when writing such comments, but I'm not sure if you are aware quite how cryptic (and in some cases incomprehensible) such comments can appear to others who may not have a clue what you are talking about. One thing I am clear about is that different people can interpret what you say in different ways, thus creating confusion where there is no need for confusion, or exacerbating an existing situation. Do you think you could be just a little bit less oblique with such comments? Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed my comment and this is not a situation where I think amending it will be helpful for the greater interests of the underlying (and often stated) goals of this project. While I accept that some confusion may result on occasions like this, if I was anymore direct on this one, I think it would exacerbate the situation more than if I did not make the comment at all (and I believe that escalation goes well beyond what we have seen so far, which is not something I think a lot of us wish to see unnecessarily). The comment is very broad because it is directed at more than one individual, body and entity (involving more than one situation); each need to reflect on it and actually learn from it. Still, for what it is worth, I don't like wasting words and that can often require much sharper comments than the one that you have just deemed is very "cryptic" or "oblique", but that should not be a surprise in your case, given that you have had a taste of them before (in other words, you've been on the receiving end of such comments from me, particularly pre-2011). Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's one of those very broad comments? So broad that no-one notices it? Fair enough. As for the comments I've had a taste of, I remember some of them, but maybe not all of them. Sometimes not being direct enough means a message doesn't actually reach the person (or entity) it was aimed at (unless your comments were aimed at the community and not ArbCom?). Something I've learnt over time is to be more direct and less indirect. I see that Casliber was also puzzled by your statement. At the end of the day, if you don't make yourself clearer (off-wiki if needed), then people may think you are just making over-arching pronouncements to look socratic, without actually really knowing what you are talking about. For my part, if I had to work out what you are hinting at, the simplest interpretation is that you are saying that when a crisis develops, resignations (for whatever reason) follow, even if not prompted by that particular incident. Would that be an accurate interpretation? Carcharoth (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on and reporting on arbitration matters

[edit]

Following on from the above, I noticed that there have been some objections to the wording you used in your latest arbitration report for The Signpost. I haven't actually been reading that for a few months, but reading that most recent report reminded me of earlier instances where people objected to the way you reported on things, sometimes after you had commented on or posted to the pages for the cases that you ended up reporting on (I can provide links if needed). What I want to ask is where you draw the line between commenting on and/or participating in arbitration processes, and reporting on them? Have you considered asking others to write the report for cases where you end up getting involved in the associated discussions, or simply staying out of the discussions and only reporting on them? I'm asking because it is hard to report objectively once you have got involved in the discussions surrounding a case. Carcharoth (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that I have not yet responded to your previous post, let alone this one. While you wait for me to respond to both posts here (and it may be a while), I have questions for you. In view of all of the potential circumstances and in view what you said in your previous post, I think it is best those questions are dealt with off-wiki. I presume your email address has not changed since the last time I chatted to you, but in the event that it has, please let me know or drop me a mail so as to ensure that you receive my questions (and that I receive your answers) in the same medium. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

[edit]

Arb Rep

[edit]

I've been meaning to say some time that you've been doing a good job. Tony (talk) 17:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for the barnstar :) Now we need someone to help clear up the Peer Review Backlog. Lynch7 16:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin policy reverts

[edit]

Take a break, I'm checking on her edits and seeing if they're problematic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on some of the reverts, not others. (And yes, I know that adds up to 4, I'm just too lazy to go back and do an exact count.) I'd suggest the talkpage if there are any remaining problems -- there's nothing that actually changes the meaning of the policy, as far as I can tell.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know the revert count, but I haven't warned her or reported her for 3RR because I don't want to see her blocked unnecessary (she welcomed anyone to change it back if there were any issues). The copyedits were fine, it's the inadvertent substantial changes which I've reverted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing, too, because she wasn't reverting your changes, but you were reverting hers.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err no, each time she changes the page (where there has been an intervening edit), it counts as a revert as she has changed my work in part (which held the content as it was before her change). That it was happening at a policy page would make it that much worse. So no, she was reverting my changes (beyond 3RR). You need to be careful; simply looking at whether an edit summary says "revert" or not makes for clumsy adminship. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err no, it's only a revert if it changes a previous editor's action. If you hadn't edited that part of the article before (or at least, fairly recently), it's not reverting you when she changes it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited each of those parts of the page before and have drafted some parts too (don't know where you're plucking the 'fairly recently' from); this is a policy page and changes must reflect what the Community is OK with. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to WP:Administrators

[edit]

Just noted the serial reverts. I understand the issues. Thus, I am very carefully not making any edits that change the sense of the page in any way. Just trying to tighten the syntax a little, while explaining every change. Also, I note on the talk page that anyone is welcome to revert my changes. Do we need to discuss every little element of proper English on the talk page ? No wonder the page demonstrates such poor usage. Needs a serious edit. Likely, English is a second language for many editors. Jewishprincess (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were doing fine until those 3 successive edits which I successively reverted, and you were fine again after that. :) It's because they were one after the other that I thought you might need to stop and discuss any more. Some things appear a little more complicated, but that's deliberately written in that way to prevent unnecessary wikilawyering. Other parts are just poor usage, as you say, and those edits aren't problematic at all. Just be a bit careful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

[edit]
Hello, Ncmvocalist. Check your email – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

- Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 11:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbComm section of The Signpost

[edit]

Howdy. You may be interested in reading this.--Rockfang (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, xeno got it. I take this approach to suit the way things work in practice (both in terms of Signpost publishing and DR generally). Thanks for the note, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Zuggernaut

[edit]

Isn't the post on my talk page by Zuggernaut (talk · contribs) a violation of his topic ban? Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. He's also engaged in the same type of behavior which led to the restrictions, and made several violations of his restrictions by the looks of it (see here and here, [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]). Now the restrictions need to be enforced via blocks and topic bans probably need expansion (via his probation). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bommarillu

[edit]

I have nominated Bommarillu for a reassessment. I believe you were the last reviewer, correct? The reasons are here. I hope it was better before and can be reconstituted. There are a couple others that I believe are in the same boat: Anand (2004 film) and maybe Unnale Unnale, but I will wait to see how this progresses first. BollyJeff || talk 19:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The GAR instructions ask you to notify the "main contributing editors to the article" (who, in this case, was the person who requested the review last: User:Mspraveen), "relevant WikiProjects for the article and, if recently GA reviewed, the reviewer". Although I appreciate the notification, I reviewed this in 2007 and I don't consider that a recent review. I think you need to notify the others so they can comment (or make changes to the article if they wish to). That said, at least 2 of the 4 reasons you've given are relatively minor and could be resolved by you pretty quickly if it is an issue, so it seems a little strange to me that you've went to the trouble of listing them 2 reasons (bolding and soundtrack section). Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will notify User:Mspraveen. You are right those two are minor, but the sources one is big, and I just listed everything that I saw. BollyJeff || talk 02:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could fix everything but the sources. Not enough time to do that right now. We probably need to give it a week before you do anything, right? And who will actually delist it, you? I think I will ask for a reassessment of the other two as well. They are just not up to par with the other Indian film-related GAs. BollyJeff || talk 14:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll do it if other users are also in the same boat (and changes are not made to address the sourcing concerns within 7 days of the GAR nomination). You're of course welcome to delist it after that point as well (the GA and FA assessment processes are separate). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its getting to be about time to pull the trigger on these three. I am a little confused about what all to do. Could you please take care of it, and I will learn? BollyJeff || talk 21:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they just scrape it aside from the shoddy sources. Although you probably know this now Ncm, please be wary of bad sources if you ever review Indian cinema articles in the future. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that the circumstances the project are in today are not the same as the circumstances it was in 4 years ago, Blofeld. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

[edit]

Bommarillu

[edit]

I see that you have decided to delist the above. However, the GAR is still ongoing at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bommarillu/1, so I have reverted you. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

[edit]

Signpost

[edit]

I'm not going to name names, but, I'm sorry you were treated rudely last week, I liked the 'What is the effect of this decision and what does it tell us?' section.

I'm going to try and dump a bunch of content for the ARBCOM report out tonight, if you could whip it into shape (prune anything that you think needs it) that would be great, otherwise I'm sure one of the copy editors will clean up the worst of my inability to write well. jorgenev 07:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

[edit]


The Signpost: 3 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

[edit]

Weigh in?

[edit]

Would you like to weigh in at the discussion in Talk:India on some 40 odd images? I know that's a lot, but a simple Yes/No would be adequate. Of course, if you choose to comment at more length, it would be even better. The India page is now the second most-viewed country page (after the US) and the 15th page overall, so having a set of high quality representative pictures becomes even more imperative. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Stories Project

[edit]

Hello,

My name is Victor Grigas, and I'm a storyteller at the Wikimedia foundation. We're telling stories of Wikipedia users, editors, donors, programmers and staff to paint a picture of who uses Wikipedia - for the 2011 fundraiser.

I am in the process of planning a trip to India to gather stories from Indian Wikipedians in face-to-face interviews (possibly on video).

My primary goal is to conduct 15-20 interviews, and hopefully enough of my interviews will make compelling stories that will effectively solicit donations from the public. These stories may also be used for other communication purposes by the foundation.

I found your userpage on a list of prolific Wikipedians and thought I’d reach out to you. Prolific editing is always a good story to tell!

If you are interested in participating, please contact me via my email:

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Thank you for your time!

Victor

About me: I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2005, and have a background in film, video and audio. My userpage can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Victorgrigas

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

[edit]

WP India in the Signpost

[edit]

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject India for a Signpost article to coincide with WikiConference India next month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or the interviewer, Belugaboy. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 November2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

[edit]

I hope .....

[edit]

.... you are coming back? --regentspark (comment) 21:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

[edit]

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

[edit]

Revival of COTM

[edit]

Hi,

You may be aware that Collaboration of the Month has been revived by members of WP: India. For January 2012 there are 2 articles - Indian COTM - Premchand and Indian COTM for GA - Mahatma Gandhi. As a senior and respected editor you are requested to partake in this activity. Cheers, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

[edit]

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ncmvocalist/Archive_9&oldid=1088854540"