Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brandon (talk | contribs) at 12:28, 24 June 2009 (→PJ Haseldine community ban: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ncmvocalist is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries (will try to keep track of watchlist and talk page, but only expects to be "active" again in June).

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

I received this Christmas present from this project, via certain clerks (and ex-clerks) of the Arbitration Committee. I did seek to have the present revoked by the Arbitration Committee here, but they indirectly (and in some cases, directly) insisted that it will not be, nor would they accept it being returned. Despite private clarification from arbitrators that the clerks did not consult the uninvolved members of the Committee prior to giving me this gift, certain arbitrators chose to (in public) do everything possible to change the focus and relevant facts of the request in favour of the users they appointed: the clerks. But I note that this experience is no different to the sort of issues and politics others have encountered with the disgraced ArbCom over time.

Both the Committee and clerks were already made aware (off-wiki) in October of precisely what the implications were in bestowing such a gift upon me. It is time to realise one of them. As this was the thanks the Committee gave me for my contributions to this project, I need to show the precise extent of my appreciation of the gift I received. The tag that I will add to my gift for ArbCom and the clerks/ex-clerks involved is “enjoy the fruits of your labour.” I offer the following New Year’s gift in return to the project (and its Arbitration Committee and relevant delegates): a token of "harmony" via my retirement.

My contributions went across the spectrum from poor to excellent. No edits from me can imply a lot of things – it could mean I would no longer

do any or all of the following.

Enforce RFC/U conventions Archive RFC/Us Initiate sanction/ban discussions in a manner that the community are willing to consider, and log successful ones. Although there were multiple individual editors that have been in the past few months, the widest measure I pushed through the community is the Obama pages article probation which is still very active. Criticise or question the edits and actions of editors, administrators, other types of users, but especially arbitrators and clerks Nudge/nag arbitrators to do their job Assess articles, either at WikiProject level, Editorial Team level, or GA level Create stub articles and redirects where necessary Provide perspective in earlier stages of dispute resolution, whether it’s a Wikiquette alert, RFC/U, or otherwise Maintain the assessment department of WikiProject India, and periodically check the talk of the India noticeboard Attempt to fix the (unfortunately) poor quality of articles relating to Carnatic music – one less editor with knowledge and experience in the area, among other areas such as law, commerce, literature to name a few. Provide reliable sources (peer reviewed journal articles and other scholarly sources) for the mainspace Fight vandalism Identify problem editors (which cannot be done without first-hand experience) and have them rid from the project as early as possible where they cannot be reformed. Do much else for that matter, when it comes to Misplaced Pages.

A lot of problem users are going to undo the work or progress I and others have made on certain articles, and in certain areas (like dispute resolution). I have no regrets if (a) that happens, because it is a price that needs to be paid for what I received or (b) it doesn’t happen, because it would still be detrimental to the project. Some users already thought that my departure would mean that their sanctions are no longer effective, as evidenced by this – not the wisest move, particularly when I didn’t formally retire yet, or when I wasn’t the sole user who voted for that sanction. But I digress….

Some conventions are necessary (like in RFC/U), but a lot of needless bureaucracy infects this project far too often, and it often moves this project; ‘’away’’ from achieving its purpose (rather than towards it) – the issues with the clerks/Committee is an example of that. Only the community can take care of the overall problem, whether its through the candidates they support in elections, or otherwise. The community has the power to do anything it puts its mind to - especially because it is not elected or politically motivated, so any action or lack of action will result in a reaction – which affects the overall well-being of this project, and its contributors (whether it’s positive or negative). In this case, I’ll let you decide if the outcome decided by ArbCom, along with its implications, were in their own interests or if they were in the best interests of this project.

Anyway, if there were any tasks I was meant to do (that are incomplete), I apologise if I don't complete them. My retirement will be effective as of when I place a "RETIRED" tag at the top of both my user page and talk page - if it's not up there yet, it's because there are a couple more things that are being discussed and finalised. Just as I’ve met a lot of users I wish I never encountered at all, I’m happy to have met a lot of friends here too – you can be sure that I’ll cherish the pleasant memories from on and off wiki. :) Take care, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• As a follow editor (we're all editors and contributors before our other things here at Misplaced Pages-- gotta remember that sometime), I don't like to see good contributors leave. Your edits are mostly well-received. Perhaps, as some would say, you're trying to do everything you see that needs to be done and take it all on your shoulders. It's hard to do that. You get burnt out very quick when that happens; all the pressure you put on yourself, the others having a different opinion than you... Do know, though, that your RFAR request on the clerks have also triggered discussion on whether the page dedicated to ArbCom Clerks needs a rewrite to make explicit of what things should be left to clerks. Bureaucracy, I know, but sometimes it needs to be done (or else the world would fall apart!).
• I hope your retirement is not a permanent one. Hopefully, de-detoxification (de-wikiholic?) would allow you to feel less stressed and be able to contribute again with a new perspective. If you feel that this message is unwelcome, feel free to remove it; I won't hold it against you. - Penwhale | 09:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Damn! (and if you do remove this I will hold it against you, but not of course act upon it...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U

Would you mind taking a look at your recent changes to the WP:RFC/U page again?

You've moved the "closing and archiving" instructions up so that it precedes the instructions for listing the RfC in the first place, which is surely a logical error, and you've instructed the filer to list the RfC/U in the "how to create an RfC/U page" section instead of in the "Here's the list of general user RfC/U pages."

I doubt that this is what you really intended to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Not a logical error, no. The instruction to the filer is something that is something I am finding issues with to begin with. In any case, it's now been reverted to the original version prior to bold edits; I'm noting some of the issues on the RFC talk page. Cheers for the note, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to ping you about my thoughts on your RFC/U draft. It looks like you might be busy with other stuff, so if you're out of time and energy, perhaps I'd see about moving some of the parts where we agree into WP:RFC/U. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ola!

Hey.. how's it going? I just took off for a few months from wiki.. exploring other forms of creativity. :) I hope you've been keeping well. I just got back today.. started off with Rang De Basanti.. cleaned up.. and re-nominated it for A-class review. Let's see how that fares.. I've gotta a lot of catching up to do.

Are things okay? I somehow feel something is amiss after seeing this page. Ping me back whenever possible. Mspraveen (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Good to see your reply. Yeah, I see the assessments are a mess. I'm sorting it out. Mspraveen (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_India.2FAssessment.23Quality_scale

I started a discussion about the quality scale. --Redtigerxyz 09:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

archiving

It's work in progress. I am talking to my GA reviewer too at the same time. A bit of multitasking going. --Redtigerxyz 05:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The format is "* ] nom by xyz. {{done}} by abc Right. --Redtigerxyz 05:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety 02:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rang De Basanti

Hey Ncm, How're you? I was wondering if you'll be able to add something to the film's A-class review? I ask you this because you've done a few reviews on my GA noms. Let me know. How are you hanging out there? How are things with you? Mspraveen (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Haseldine COI restrictions

I just commented there, but in my view there's a clear history and a clear consensus now to impose the restriction. I'd go ahead and close it now. You put the wording up - if you want to apply that and post the appropriate notes that's fine with me. Otherwise I can later today/tonight. But it should be done.

Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dream Focus and Collectonian

Hello, thanks for your comments. Please see my reply on my talk page and let's keep discussion centered there for the moment. — sephiroth bcr 09:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As that discussion on my talk page wasn't really going anywhere, I think everyone would be better served by taking the issue to RfC/U. — sephiroth bcr 05:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied in new section there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Really, is this necessary? I mean, he's free to link to my talk page archive, but copying 40k of discussion onto his talk page seems excessive and somewhat counter to the point of me archiving the discussion. — sephiroth bcr 07:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. But consider it this way; who's going to add anything further to it other than him? My prediction is it'll either help (relatively harmlessly) put himself at ease, or, he might end up finding a way to "resolve" this sooner. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded for extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially in regard to coordinating the Request for comment on user conduct process. Awarded by PhilKnight (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

RFAR/Aitias

See comments in my section in response to your comments. ⇒SWATJester 00:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Responded in my section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Would like your opinion

I'd like to get your opinion on this discussion please: . Thanks Oicumayberight (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Noted; will look at this later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. At the time I requested your opinion, it felt like I was the only one that was being blamed. By the time it was marked stuck, comments from neon white seemed a little more fair and helpful. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A-Class assessment at WP:India

Hi, thanks for signing up at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Assessment working group. I have always regarded WP:India as one of the most successful and active projects, and I was wondering if you thought that an A-Class review system might be appropriate for WP:India, similar to those used at WP:MILHIST and WP:FILM? It strikes me that there will be many Indian topics that require expert knowledge for judging completeness and quality of content. Do you think there would be support for such a move at WP:India? Or a more basic system? Feel free to reply here. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Noted; will reply later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Just to note I haven't forgotten; still writing my view out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My answer to the first question is yes and no; it would be appropriate if there was a reasonable amount of activity (we'd all generally favour that, and support it) - but perhaps not otherwise. Having a couple of systems to choose from would certainly be useful; what did you have in mind when suggesting a more basic system? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been away, but people have been beginning to look at this. Please give us your thoughts over at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment/A-Class_criteria#What_counts_as_a_review.3F. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: e-mail

Hey. Sorry, did not have the time to read the e-mail until now. Will reply this evening, though. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 13:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just replied. — Aitias // discussion 14:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just saw your reply, have replied again. — Aitias // discussion 15:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC) To clarify for those checking the status of this, at this point, I'm awaiting confirmation of receipt and/or reply. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied, again. — Aitias // discussion 16:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied. :) — Aitias // discussion 18:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And replied; thank you for your time and efforts. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Neon white comment

I thought neon white was an admin, then I just checked his user page and couldn't see any admin category. I would like to know what gives that person to right to frivolously dismiss a complaint on Wikiquette the way my complaint was handled. Misplaced Pages should only appoint people to handling complaints if they know the E word - Empathy. MegX (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your closure of the WQA

I agree to your closure of my WQA. However, I said that the cross-posting was because I assumed that WQA was the wrong place to ask for a block. Not to get more immediate action.--Ipatrol (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong RfAr

To me, your statement on the Ryulong RfAr is impossible to fully parse. Can you restate what you were trying to say in different words, perhaps? I get the feeling you were trying to imply or indicate something without actually saying it, but unless you had a small targeted audience in mind... I'm not sure it worked out how you intended. Avruch 17:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Since neither Ryulong or Mythdon agreed to disengage voluntarily, it was of heightened importance that the case was not rejected - the most one could do is temporarily abstain, and it seems I wasn't the only one to indirectly do so (though, maybe not for the exact same reasons). Other than that, I note that your instinct is pretty good; but as far as I'm aware, those who needed to get the message have received it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz 23:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		I wish to thank you for your gracious support during my bid for a position as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject in the recent March 2009 elections. I was initially apprehensive to stand for election as I was unsure on how well I would be received, but I am pleasantly surprised and delighted to have been deemed worthy to represent my peers within the project. I assure and promise you, I will strive to do my upmost to justify your trust in myself with this esteemed position. Thank you, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Soldiers of the 4th Australian Division crossing a duckboard track through Chateau Wood, Ypres on 29 October 1917.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 14:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride arbitration

Please refactor this comment to avoid criticizing me personally for my contribution to the arbitration case. I don't want to have to come down on you in process of defending myself, but you are out of line. If you disagree with my opinion, please say so and leave it at that.Wikidemon (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and responded there, but if you would care to avoid getting personal with me I can remove my attempt to defend myself.Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not out of line so I find no need to refactor it, but I do note your concern. I've gone ahead and responded again. It seems you've done precisely what you did in your interpretation - took something too personally and way out of proportions from the actual words stated. The criticism isn't due to you personally making your contribution to the case - I encourage as much participation as possible. But this is a criticism of your position and that particular way of looking at things, and if there is something personal about it, it would be the point about the manner in which you originally raised the position. It also wouldn't have been so verbose if it was done some other way. I'm not sure it'd be wise of you to assume that you should be defending yourself, as I'm certainly not putting your editing or reputation under the microscope. I also don't see the need to be threatening to "come down" on anyone, unless there is no response to the criticism posed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I already posted my reply, and defended myself to the minimum extent necessary. Yet your response was further out of line. I wish you could simply make your point and state your specific disagreement if it is relevant without getting so personal in denigrating my common sense, language abilities, childhood, etc. You are at most times and in most places a sensible, insightful contributor on a wide variety of subjects, so it is weird that you see fit to elaborate to no apparent end on my supposed failures in a public forum such as Arbcomm. Combing my talk page for signs of my faults is particularly lame. My detractors there historically have been sockpuppets, in case you actually care. And many of them engage in the same tactic. They see that I have been in conflict (usually with their other accounts) and accuse me of having trouble getting along. I'm knee deep in Misplaced Pages nonsense as it is with all the socks, SPAs, edit warriors, and other troublemakers. I don't have a whole lot of patience for anyone who wants to blame all that on my overreacting or being paranoid. Wikidemon (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what's actually lame is assuming I have any interest in combing anything to do with you; I responded on your talk page and noticed something before I navigated away. But I note that you should be careful about what accusations you fling - my impression of Franamax is far from a sockpuppet or SPA or anything along those lines. I have a respect for users who are harassed, but really, this doesn't excuse you repeatedly suggesting that this is something more personal than it actually is. As for the issues raised at arbitration, it seems you're not listening and rather than continue to engage in IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory, so I'm calling this for what it is - end of discussion. We're done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Re MZM Rfar

A revision of your votes on Fof 4 variations would be appreciated.

On a very separate note, a few weeks after the email you replied to me with in January, I'd sent a reply - just to confirm receipt.Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FoF: I'll have a look. E-mail: yes, Jan 22? -- FayssalF - 17:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My failure to AGF

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

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

Blocks, although often needed, have an unfortunate and horrible effect on anyone who is on the receiving end; the experience is not at all pleasant, and administrators and even arbitrators fail to truly comprehend the precise effect. I would not wish to compound the effect on anyone. I think we will still have disagreements even in the future, but hopefully, they can be resolved more amicably - if we can achieve that much, then that's certainly worth it. Thank you for the note, and apology accepted. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Have a nice weekend.--Caspian blue 01:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What is floating in the rice punch, and how do we know it's safe to drink? :) I agree with Ncmvocalist's comment on blocking. The same can be said for warning templates, which we avoid using on people who understand them, and save for new users who will be hit the hardest in a battering of notices when they are already bewildered by our processes. This process helps make sure they feel entirely unwelcome. Cheerios! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The suspicious materials floated on sikhye are sliced jujube and pine nuts, Watson Those are for garnishes to look more delicious, not for M.O!--Caspian blue 04:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yummm! I love Jujube and pine nuts. :) Jujyfruits are good too! Did you know the green ones used to be mint, but now they are lime I think. (I'll have to check out what that kind of Jujube is. I'm not familiar with it.)ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Aitias

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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] 22:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Hi there. Please avoid repeatedly referring to various policy/guideline/essays - that's what the section "applicable policies and guidelines" exists for. On another note, as you are aware, users certifying the basis of the dispute are requested to provide diffs showing that they tried to resolve a dispute, and failed to do so. I've tried to fix the formatting so that it is consistent across RfCs in general; if you can provide diffs of certifiers trying and failing to resolve the dispute, then there are no issues with the filing of this RfC. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Its the whole talk page, do I still need diffs?

Oh btw, I checked history of RFC/U and saw you there but didnt realize you were an admin. So I moved it to approved section myself. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and anyone can move it to approved if it has been certified - somehow, the sections regarding trying and failing to resolve the dispute were omitted in the template (perhaps when it was moved), so this has been restored. Diffs are always preferrable, especially if the RfC is looked at later down the track by the community or ArbCom. Diffs of what you said/did (whether it was on user talk page, article talk page, edit summary) in trying to resolve the dispute, and diffs of what the other user said/did in making that attempt a failure is what is needed here, and will resolve the issue. Admins will generally come to RfC when a deletion is requested due to the RfC being uncertified, for example. Does that help? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect to User:Mike Doughney and his edit summary, he retired because of User:Collect (the guy in RFC). See Mikes user page. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I figured; the description on his talk page is similar to the problems I've encountered a long time ago - but the fact I've gotten past it and the problem was banned from the project should say something. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

63 hours now - and not a single "cetifier" had given any proof of dispute resolution. I am minded of Cato's reference to Cataline at this point. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Many users have give proof, you just refuse to accept it as such. You are not acting in good faith. You are refusing to see that RFC's do more than attempt to find resolution but as=lso to collect info...which you have been referred to as Wikipolicy per WP:RFC several times. Please do not Lawyer up the issue or become blind to that which has been presented to you. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I took a crack at filling out the template as you suggested. There's a lot more out there that I could cite, including his approach to Helen Jones-Kelley and his many BLP Noticeboard filings where he attacks "non-neutral" editors for participating, while he does what he wants. Let me know if you think I should add more. Mattnad (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Providing a couple more examples would certainly make things clearer for outsiders, though for technical purposes of "process", what you've given is adequate to demonstrate your failed attempt. Unfortunately, I'm finding it difficult to say the same about what Phoenix of9 has provided; I would suggest that he tries a similar approach to you, rather than try concentrate on gray areas at this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I updated the evidence, everything in order? Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In my view, yes. :) The reason the step is compulsory is to avoid abuse of the RfC system, or claims as such in the future; there are probably more steps to overcome, whether it is through the community or ArbCom, but at least you're getting there gradually. Best, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing that certification entry just now. That's what I meant to do but I didn't check the result properly - mea culpa. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Umm...no problem...but you realise that the entry I touched was Dicklyon's, not yours? ;) So are you involved, uninvolved, semi-involved or...? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm endorsing in that section, which seems right, and suppose I misunderstood your edit. Sorry to have bothered you. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Then your edit was right. No problem. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you seem to know what you're doing, is it proper to go through and contact other editors who were involved in the dispute regardless of which side they took to comment? I've got a few that weren't and though quite a few might side with Collect I think that's only b/c most of the ones that were against are already there. Soxwon (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to be specific as I'm not sure precisely how far this dispute extends to other users - I'm uninvolved in this dispute and and would like to remain so, at least for as long as possible. But just bear the following in mind at all times. Friendly notices will be ok; inappropriate canvassing would not be - if you can satisfy all 4 criteria to ensure that it is not the latter, then that should be ok. I think there'll be no issues with transparency as long as you continue to post at the talk page of the RfC. It's the other 3 criteria you need to be mindful of. Take care, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm posting all names and using the same message:

Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at(Insert Article) (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect ~~~~ I hope that works. Soxwon (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, thnx for the info. Soxwon (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Re

I was responding to the instructions after enquiring about the proper course from another editor. If that is the wrong way, thank you for setting me straight and sorry for your trouble. Soxwon (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Please stop edit war

I do not see myself as edit warring, but merely attempting to retain a semblance of order and civility where in the past few days there has been little. I have noted on the discussion page where consensus was reached. Please review that section. Thank you for understanding. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look and note that many of my opinions which were in the RFC were moved to discussion page. What's good for the goose will be good for the gander. Before edit warring with each other -and before placing warnings of such- perhaps you could voice these opinions of yours about what goes where in the correct and appropriate section...here. Let me be clear: we are on the same side...I wanted all the issues in the RFC itself but was overruled. I'm using the established guidelines. Have you thoroughly read through the RFC and the discussion page? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, please note that the issue SluggoOne and Aervanath are addressing were already WAY WAY WAY discussed with a clear consensus -despite Sox's inability to accept it's outcome- in Motion to Close . Just an FYI, please review. Thanks. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit is inappropriate, period. I'm well aware of the facts and your opinions; thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

EddieSegoura Ban Appeal

For your information, a discussion has been opened at WP:AN#EddieSegoura Ban Appeal regarding an issue you may be involved in. Your comments are invited. Thank you! For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold 01:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Closure of EddieSegoura's ban appeal. –xeno 20:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Socks

As per this, are you saying that the IP from the Collect RFC is also that of that banned user? I mean, it is virtually the same IP, except for that last number.— Dædαlus 07:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No that was a mistake. A bad one at that! I was investigating old socks of the banned user and that was still stuck in my clipboard. I've fixed it now. What I was meant to mean was that it's an obvious sock of the harassing IP. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, okay. Thanks for the response.— Dædαlus 07:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the relevant ANI thread, here.— Dædαlus 08:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Email

Ya, it's fine.— Dædαlus 07:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WQA query

Hi Ncmvocalist,

I wonder if I could ask you to review this? I'm frankly rather startled to see it closed as "Not a Wikiquette issue" (which I feel is erroneous, to say the least). I also feel that it is premature to close the discussion, especially as Coppertwig (the other editor labelled by Tremello22 in the diffs I supplied) has not yet commented (and, according to his/her talk page, will be away until tomorrow). Jakew (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Jakew (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but if you could possibly re-open the WQA discussion again, I would appreciate it. I was planning to comment further in reply to the replies to my comment. I think this question is best discussed at WQA: the whole point of WQA is to get opinions on what is or is not incivility, which is exactly what this discussion is about. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe it would be reasonable of me to leave this open for any longer - as I specified, it was a temporary unarchive for 72 hours, which delayed for even longer than that, and the summary was changed quite a bit from the original. That's all the assistance I can offer on this. Any further reopening or closing of the thread will need to be done by another uninvolved user who has already commented there - I suggest you contact one of them; they're welcome to reopen if they wish. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Since you were helpful in the WQA, I just wanted to return the favour, in a small way. Anyway, you seemed to imply that you've come across similar issues before, and I presume that the issue will come up again. I've just noticed that WP:EQ explicitly advises against labelling others: "Do not label or personally attack people or their edits." (emph in original). It's too late for this particular instance, but it's helpful to keep the link in case anyone tries to argue that that sort of thing is acceptable behaviour. Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jakew; that is indeed useful - I remember using it for reference before, but it was a long time ago. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG

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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold 02:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Post signing

Thanks for the reminder. It becomes habitual, I do the preview and then sign... a little too quick that time.Mattnad (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Voice of reason

Thanks for the extremely level head.

Why aren't you an admin? rootology (C)(T) 15:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

—/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 15:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Sorry, I just noticed your comment on my talk page, I guess I missed it in the middle of some of the other comments. I've responded here . Honestly, I'm not sure how we got off on the wrong foot, and I regret it. Life's too short to make enemies here, especially from other productive editors. Good luck in the future, and thanks for all you do here. Dayewalker (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree; making enemies (esp with long-time contribs who are here for the good of the project and its productive contribs.) sort of destroys half of the point of working here. No hard feelings from my side either, and I too apologise and would like to put it behind us, and wish you the all the best in the future. I'm happy we can put our previous misunderstandings/conflict/whatever-it-was behind us and move forward.

Heh, btw, I thought you may have confused me with someone else when talking about edit war page, but it makes sense now. Thank you. I haven't been on that page for ages...but more than that, I can't believe all that happened and I had no idea! :S Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If you'll accept my apology, I'll certainly accept yours. Some of the conflicts we find ourselves in online just seem so...silly, once you get some distance from them. I've been through some changes lately, and I'd like to carry that newfound feeling of peace over to my wiki-world as well. There's too many malcontents and vandals here to make enemies of someone else who's just here to make things better. Glad this is behind us, take care, and if there's anything I can ever help out on, just drop me a line at my talk page. You're welcome there any time. Dayewalker (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Active sanctions

Actually, we changed our original plan to mitigate your concerns on this one: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Active sanctions is just a section transclusion of Misplaced Pages:General sanctions and Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions, and the original pages are untouched. Kirill  16:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll probably also want to duplicate your community sanction wording on Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions to Misplaced Pages:General sanctions; the two pages are out of sync now. Kirill  16:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I've duplicated the wording at general sanctions. A heads-up at the original discussion about the change in plan would not have gone unappreciated, but thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Kirill  13:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment about "reading the rules" in WP:AN/I

As a multi-wiki editor with over 6500 edits, 4200+ of them here, it's a tad rude to tell me to read the rules as if I were a newbie. I suppose we are all newbies at different times in different tasks in our lives. WP:AN/I has changed quite a bit since early 2007, which is the last time I think I used it. Naturally, I did read the rules. That is how I found out about WP:WQA. The problem was there was no indication as to which would be the better choice between the two. WQA was topically the better choice, but in the time it took me to decide which of the two, the user had doubled the number of tag-and-run messages he'd posted, thus making AN/I a logical choice. Thus, I opted to cross-post (pointing that out clearly in my notice so that if I was wrong, it could be easily fixed). I apologize for the hiccup in procedure this caused. I realize that you deal with people who don't always read rules before acting, thus it's easy to assume that I was in the same boat. I don't take offense personally at it, but request that you remember that people posting to AN/I are often feeling a little rushed and/or stressed, thus even after reading the rules, they might still get it wrong. Telling them after the fact to read the rules is a bit like a slap in the face at that point. Sometimes a slap is deserved, but maybe you can find an equally expedient but less offensive way of saying it to others in the future. I hope you don't find my comments equally rude. They are offered as constructive criticism. Looking at your contributions, you do a lot of great work, and I want you to know I appreciate your efforts. Have a great day! —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 18:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I appreciate the work you do on the project. Yes, I know you were feeling rushed, otherwise you would've found a post on your talk page like that in my edit summary. ;) In those circumstances you've noted, I would've switched my note at ANI to "take more care to comply with the rules". I'm not sure if that's any less offensive though. I'm open if you have a better suggestion in conveying a message to that effect - please let me know if you do. :) Cheers and enjoy your day, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How about, "Please take a moment to refamiliarize yourself with the rules of this area" or something like that. It implies trust that the user did already read them (with a subtle, "you did already read them, right?" included--not that everyone gets subtle, especially non-native speakers). It also encourages a sense of calmness by suggesting they "take a moment" (and catch your breath so you can think more clearly in the future). I dunno. Just a suggestion, and one I'd probably not think of on the spur of the moment. Anyway, I'm glad that we understand each other. It's so easy to take things the wrong way in writing, especially when one is stressed at the same time. I've seen my share of drama resulting from that in the past in other forums. I try very hard to avoid it here. TTFN. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 18:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

FYI, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ncmvocalist. --auburnpilot's sock 15:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

The proposed decision is up in the above case. It is located here. The proposed decision will be presented to the Arbitration Committee for voting on May 11.

For the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; may not get through all of the principles, but the idea for providing personal notification for this is good. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 01:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

user:Scuro has requested your presence on his talk page to alert you that I'm abusing my powers again. Cheers, Nja 18:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And my view of what happened (the closure) is that it was closed as a content rather than a conduct dispute. The way it was closed (ie the unfortunate wording) had been discussed at ANI, and as you know no-one cared. The user undoubtedly wants to dredge it up again, but I hope you agree that it's water under the bridge. If not, then that's too bad. Life's too short to hold grudges. Nja 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's history as far as I'm concerned. From the way he brought this history up though, I can recognise the type of issue you are still trying to address (even now), and I can confirm with certainty that resolution would/could not be found at WQA for it. A sanction proposal is a good place to start; utilizing content dispute resolution mechanisms can often help highlight problems more effectively for the uninvolved users who are unconvinced. But all that said, I am glad you are encouraging the parties to escalate this to the next step (RfC/U); that would open up a final avenue if all else fails. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ping

I'm going through another dispute resolution process again-help

You wrote this about my reopened Wikiquette alerts ]

Per BMW. This sort of abuse of this dispute resolution mechanism is unacceptable, and the claims of disruption personal attacks and "claiming to be victim" amount to incivility in itself - the claims are unjustified. Further reopening of this thread by Nja247 should result in a block. I would appreciate it if you looked at my topic ban proposal. ]--scuro (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I'm too limited on time to be able to offer much assistance beyond the general comment/reply I gave to Nja247 above. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made the attempt

Hello! I just wanted to let you that I believe I may have found some wording to accomodate the concerns expressed by you, my fellow arbitrators, and myself. Take a look over "13.2" and let me know if that seems on-the-ball to you. Thanks for communicating your concerns and being patient with me (including making polite new message reminders). --Vassyana (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'd also like to thank you for letting me know, and making that extra effort to effectively accomodate the concerns expressed by all of us. I think it's spot-on, and is a very successful attempt. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

close RFC/U please

Since an RFAR has been made by the plaintiffs, I think the RFC/U on me which was cited as a reason for the RFAR likely should be closed. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black

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, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 17:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Bush v. Gore Importance Level

When you have time, I would like you to reassess the Importance Level for Bush v. Gore. I believe that article is worthy of at least of at least "Mid" status; currently its status is "Low". I thank you in advance for your assistance. SMP0328. (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter, Volume IV, Issue 1 – June 2009

Project news Congratulations to the West Bengal workgroup for having their flagship article featured on the Main Page! The Indian states workgroup is also involved in maintaining articles about India's states and union territories. » WikiProject Indian roads was recently started as a new workgroup, to standardize and improve articles related to Indian roads, mainly the National and State Highways. After all, India has the second largest road network in the world. Iravan, the son of Arjuna, is now our 85 good article. How do we know this? Since last year, more processes have been automated, increasing productivity. Article alerts update the project with what's happening to India-related articles, from copyright violations to featured article candidates. To do… During the last few weeks, peer reviews for the recent general election and 2003 Afro-Asian Games (held in Hyderabad) were opened and are waiting for more comments, as are several articles at the peer review department. Sikkim has been nominated for FAR, and Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay has been nominated for FAC. » Currently, 11,082 Indian articles need images. Please improve these pages, especially if you enjoy photography! We look forward to more contributions from you. To get started, go to the noticeboard. »

From the editors… The last newsletter was written a year ago. In June 2008, Indian Premier League was "hot" on Misplaced Pages, but the article about this year's IPL has attracted 477 editors, or 53% more than the previous year! Even the number of articles in the scope of our project jumped by a whopping 18,500+ articles in an year. The 3.2-year-old India quiz continues to attract old and new Wikipedians, so join in the fun! Wikipedians are organizing a meetup in Bangalore on July 4 or 5. If you are interested, head over to the page and add your name! Topics of discussion include Indian language editions of Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia India. RegentsPark, one of the prominent members of our project, was promoted to adminship this year. If you'd like to know who are the most avid editors of Misplaced Pages by number of edits, refer to this list. "While this issue has been resolved, one asks the question – what happens when there is a conflict of opinions? What about a Misplaced Pages entry on India and Pakistan, or the LTTE and the Tamils? Who can edit? Will the information be true?" writes B. Narasimhan of MiD DAY as deeper implications of the Scientology arbitration case, reminding us of the core principles of verifiability and the neutral point of view. This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing! — , Ganeshk and Tinu Cherian Project · Portal · Members · Noticeboard · Discussion

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 11:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

PJ Haseldine community ban

Please could you review this discussion and determine if his community ban has been contravened. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor for violating the community sanction on a different article. Explanation here. BJ 12:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)