User talk:Ncmvocalist/Archive 5

Vithoba

Can you look at the article and raise any issues that may hamper it's success at the FAC? For reference, Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Section_break_A Vithoba is spelled as "Vithobha" in your comments. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If I get a chance later this week, I'll try have a look. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Indian Barnstar of National Merit

		The Indian Barnstar of National Merit
		Awarded to Ncmvocalist, one of the most prolific editors from India. We are proud of you ! -- Tinu Cherian - 07:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

Just letting you know, your friend the IP address has opened up a discussion about you at ANI here [1]. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers - checkuser is already onto him; just deciding what to do with the main account. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Can you link the checkuser discussion? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Not at this venue, unfortunately. If there are no privacy concerns, I can provide more information via other means. There is however another community discussion at ANI which may provide some insight. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Answered

I answered your latest questions. Let me know if you have more. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, no more. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Proposed decision - Cold Fusion

In case it was unintentional, wanted to make you aware: although you proposed this finding, you did not provide an accompanying vote/comment/signature to confirm that you made the proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that myself while reading Flo's comments, but thanks for the notification! I usually double-check sigs before posting but I was in a bit of a rush yesterday. --bainer (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem; cheers for the prompt response. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:RfarOpenTasks.

I noticed your recent edits to RfarOpenTasks. As your editing Committee pages has been an issue of attention recently, I would like to observe here that I'm happy with your participating in this way, and that I find your changes (at least to that template—I am unsure what other edits to ArbComm utilities you have been making) helpful and constructive.

If you're thinking of moving on to helping out in other ways, do think about pinging me for a sanity check—just to avoid wrecking all your hard work with more negative attention.

Keep up the good work and thanks for your ongoing assistance.

Regards, AGK 17:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions answered

Thanks for those. Let me know if anything needs clarifying. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, I have no further questions. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I got mine answered as well. If you have any follow-ups I can answer them, and i'll do it quickly this time :) Wizardman 23:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Thanks for the questions :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your messages

Well, I think I'm all up to date on your questions now :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you are, and the best part is...no more for the elections from me. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Followup Q

Your followup Q and clarification request have been answered. Joy.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 23:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WP India template

There is a problem with your change. Preview ANY page with this template, will show something is wrong! Please fix it ASAP. I think an extra }} has been introduced in this latest change. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 08:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting any error on any page using the template, but I'm rechecking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Got it checked+fixed (I'd missed 2 lines of code) - I think it should be fine now though. Let me know if you find any other errors. Cheers for letting me know, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, they have been fixed - when I purge my edits done in past couple of hours, I see they are fine. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 10:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

File:MLV1.jpg

Hi, I was working on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 November 27 and encountered this image. Did your last comment meant that the image was published in January 5, 1947 issue? If so, I will add that to the image and remove the pui tag. Garion96 (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette comments

I appreciate you views as a non-involved user. Thanks.

I noticed that you have done a lot of the work on the Carnatic music article, and I appreciate that too. I developed a fondness for Carnatic music from the first time I heard it, and derive great pleasure from it -- as someone with no musical training, just a listener. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Concern with some edits

I'm making this comment not as a clerk of the Arbitration Committee, but as a fellow editor. I found it hard to agree with what you've done with these edits you made to the WP:RFAR page. It is very bad etiquette to alter/change other people's statements, even formatting wise, unless you're explicitly asked to do so (which is why that even though there is a supposed limit in comment size, clerks generally do not enforce it unless asked by Arbitrators - and it's only enforced when the original commentator refuses to shorten it after notices are given). In the future, please refrain from editing other people's comments, even formatting wise. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I'm replying to you in both your capacities: as an editor, but more particularly as a clerk. The nasty business that happened a couple of months ago ended with me making a conclusion - I still maintain that.

Regardless of what stage of dispute resolution, I enforce formatting guidelines to maintain consistency - the guidelines are in force for a reason. Ignoring them on some occasions and enforcing them on certain others is one problem with the dispute resolution process. The RFC/U process gave all appearances that it deteriorated into an attack zone due to lack of enforcement - this is now resolved in some ways due to more consistent enforcement of formatting guidelines. The guidelines exist to maintain consistency for all parties. If that isn't their purpose, I wonder what is - especially if it becomes a norm to neither respect or enforce those guidelines consistently across all stages of dispute resolution. Although arbitration may be a binding process, that neither eliminates, nor changes the purpose of those guidelines.

With or without notices, arbitrators are entitled to ensure such consistency is maintained (by completely removing statements that fail to adhere to the word limit). Kirill was bold enough to do so for the greater good and I endorse his action on the relevant request - as well as his message to the clerks' noticeboard: a request that the clerks get their act together. I did not strictly enforce that word limit or remove any statement; I merely touched a couple that were unreasonably long so that they are not removed in part or in entirity. Although I can appreciate the chance that John Vandenberg or Abtract may not have been pleased that their statements were alterred by someone else, I am confident they appreciate my reasons for me doing so, as well as the edits I made - unless you know something that I don't. If I am mistaken, I will apologise to those affected. Also bear in mind that both of them were given a courtesy note that my edits could be treated as a mere interim action and that they may change their statements accordingly as they please.

My own opinion differs from yours. I would appreciate thoughtful action being taken on any excessively long statements I made at the RFArb page - so no, this is not a plain case of very bad etiquette: your opinion is not absolute. Rather, I think it's futile to single my edits out as if I did not give them any thought. My edits highlight only one potential problem - certain clerks' refusal to maintain consistency. However, just because I highlight this inadequacy, the fault (if any) does not become mine. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you did not comment on this. With regards to formatting, I followed the same style that clerks have used previously this year (diffs available). However, it appears SV's understanding of correct formatting is different. Could you link me to a relevant guideline that indicates which edit is correct in substance (I.e. whether my edit was incorrect or whether SV's edit was correct)? However, if there is none, please let me know - in that case, I'd like to open a discussion to resolve this difference so the relevant guidelines or policies may be updated for the benefit of the community. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have written on my talk page, but for the reference: you are confused about which edits I'm talking about. I'm not inquiring about the edits you made on the 15th (regarding formatting, which SV restored), but rather, the edits you made to collapse other people's comments. While clerks do occasionally enforce the length limit, it is generally not a strict limit and collapsing the boxes, for obvious reasons, will make it harder to process. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ncm., I would discourage you from brining into this discussion the complaints that were made in the past about your editing in a fashion that made it appear you were a clerk (a complaint that was, of course, duly resolved). Penwhale made it quite clear this was an editorial etiquette concern; sidetracking that complaint is unhelpful. Just my two pence. AGK 19:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I have not failed to consider the sentiment about general editorial etiquette here, nor am I "sidetracking" the concern, AGK - these issues are not so simple that they are completely separate from one another. It cannot be labelled as a plain "editorial etiquette concern" given I do not edit others' comments in general. However, when it comes to enforcing the relevant comment/statement guidelines of whichever stage of dispute resolution, I do - the diffs cited in the original message are an example of that. The selective (occasional) enforcement of the length limit during arbitration is clearly a problem - I'm not suggesting limit should be absolutely enforced as 500 words or less; but when it exceeds double that length, it is no longer reasonable. If there is such a problem in me enforcing these guidelines, then I challenge (whomever concerned) to revise the guidelines so that they may be consistently applied across the board - the current ones are either past their expiry date (and no longer work), or the concerned clerks need to step up to the plate and do their job in a consistent and timely manner. I hope this response is clearer.
  • Of course, collapsing boxes isn't ideal Penwhale, and if the clerks would rather completely or partially remove/refactor those comments, then I don't think I have a reason to object; nor could any of the users affected. As I said, my edits were a mere interim measure - an attempt to avoid the need to significantly refactor or remove those comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ncm; while I think we are all grateful of your obvious desire to assist, you're not being helpful right now. By tradition, the arbitrators have generally preferred to give wide latitude during the arbitration process, enforcing the limits only as things get out of hand. It is generally considered to be counterproductive to bog an already acrimonious process down with rule enforcement. For this reason, unless a participant is clearly disruptive, the clerks will warn users and trim or remove statements if, and only if, an arbitrator requests enforcement of the limits. As well, and because editing or removing statements from participants is a very contentious area, only clerks named by the committee are generally allowed to make enforcement actions (the arbitrators themselves obviously could, but the clerks' raison d'être is to do those housekeeping duties for them).

To date, the clerks and arbitrators have allowed you to find a niche helping around the RFAR pages; but now I must ask you to take care to avoid editing active requests, be it for formatting or enforcement of the stated limits. Placing collapse boxes around statements from other editors is not acceptable, nor is editing their statements in any other way. If you feel the limits should be applied differently, raise the issue on the talk page or with the committee itself, but leave the enforcement to the clerks. — Coren ^(talk) 02:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Although it's not written down anywhere and I haven't discussed it with anyone, I think one issue here is that greater leeway should probably be accorded to the length of statements on motions and requests for clarification or amendment (where the statement on the RfAr page will be the editor's only chance to comment before the arbitrators take action), as opposed to on a regular request for arbitration (where the primary issue is just whether the case should be accepted, and if it is, then a whole set of case pages will be opened). Fairness to all participants in the process is desirable, but rigid "wordcountitis" should be avoided. In general, enforcement of statement length guidelines by removing or cutting editors' submissions should be left to the arbitrators or clerks, and (unless a statement is really grossly out of line) the editor in question should first be notified and asked to trim the statement length before it is removed or cut. However, other editors may raise such concerns in their own section of the relevant thread or in another appropriate place for attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree; greater leeway should be accorded in that section - I think I followed that in my edits too (the word length of John and Abtract's statement still did exceed the limit even after my edits - but necessarily so). In any case, I have no reason to object to giving even more leeway if relevant guidelines are revised accordingly - nor would I be concerned with such enforcement in that case. I've made an edit to codify part of your comment which, I gather, is one of the unwritten norms that needs to be written for transparency. In this way, any user making a statement will not spend any more time than is necessary in worrying about whether it complies with the word limit. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to respond to the other part of concerns raised by the others, succintly put by Brad as "In general, enforcement of statement length guidelines by removing or cutting editors' submissions should be left to the arbitrators or clerks,". This issue keeps coming up in regards to you. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I already have, but I don't care to repeat myself or make my response any more explicit, no. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You're evading the key issue here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think the point has been made. I suggest we wrap this discussion up presently. Ncm., my talk page is open.

If nothing else is taken from above, we should note this: the refactoring of comments by other editors in any way on Requests for arbitration is a touchy action to take at the best of times and should be left to the clerks [who have the advantage of looking 'official' and hence reducing the opportunity for drama to emerge over challenged statement trimmings] or arbitrators—in my experience some editors perceive the word limit imposed by the Committee on RfAr comments as needless bureaucracy.

AGK 21:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that the complaint I made at the WT:RFArb was not duly resolved AGK, or I would not have received this which I've since reverted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In that case you shouldn't have edited the page; the instructions are quite clear and are there for a reason—unless you're an Arbitrator, you shouldn't be editing the page. The matter is resolved, obvious matters where the instructions are clearly not being followed aside. AGK 12:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: It was foolish to actively reverting warnings from Clerks. I'll point this discussion out on Clerks-l. AGK 12:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it was extremely foolish to make a "final warning" over needless bureaucracy when the substance of the edit was correct - precisely why I brought this to WT:RFArb the first time, and where ArbCom and the community noted that obvious maintenance edits weren't a problem; the majority of my edits on such pages. Yet here we are again. You'd be correct in assuming that my revert signifies my disgust with these unambiguous ownership issues by certain clerks. Given the apparent lack of success the previous time clerks-l discussed this, there is no point continuing this farce. If I don't receive an apology from (or on behalf of) the clerk responsible for that warning, I intend on moving this to a much wider community discussion - as certain clerks show no sign of refraining from acting in such a manner which is unbecoming of them, then it's time for more forceful measures and significant reforms before this goes any further. I leave my future contributions in the hands of the wide community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that I am the clerk of the case, it is my job to implement the decision and format it as required. I am trusted by the committee and community to do the correct job. When I edit the page, people trust that my edits are correct and the tally corresponds to the actual vote - this trust comes with being a clerk. You're not a clerk and don't share that same amount of trust - that's one of the reasons we have clerks, to give some credibility to in implementation. Nobody has any problems with you editing workshop pages, talk pages or the main RfArb pages, but in the same way we ask all members of the community not to edit the proposed decision page or the main page, we ask you not to because you have no authority to be editing it - your edits don't have the credibility behind them that the clerks do. That's nothing against you, it's simply because all of us clerks have been appointed directly by the committee as official implementers of decisions. Now, I'll ask nicely - please don't edit the main case pages (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2) or the main proposed decision page of any request for arbitration in the future - this is a simple request that we ask of all non-arbitrators and non-clerks. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict.]

Your quarrel lies with the Committee who dictate who may edit the pages set up for their own use—not with the Clerks who enforce those rules. Please feel free to begin a Community-wide discussion on the validity of the Committee's right to ban edits such as that you were warned for; many editors have disputed it, and met with no success. No Clerk has acted in an inappropriate fashion, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from claiming so; I therefore foresee no apology forthcoming. The Clerks are appointed because they are competent and level-headed, and they strive not to exclude editors who are not in their ranks, but rather to enforce the rules of the Committee on the Arbitrators' behalf—so that the Arbitrators may get on with the business of doing what they were elected to do.

There seem to be fundamental clashes of principle here, and I am at a loss to see how to resolve them. Getting the facts straight will probably help, though.

AGK 13:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear: I personally understand you are trying to help; however, as a few of the clerks have pointed out, there is a reason why we ask people not to edit the main RFAR case pages (in fact, I have removed these edits. In fact, I was very rigid about making sure that this RFAR case page stayed the same (due to the fact that various users were posting comments as well as adding/removing parties, which is highly frowned upon. You'll notice that the only time the main case page gets edited, it's either when 1) a case is opening, 2) a motion/injunction has passed before case closure, or 3) the case is closing. All these events require an arbitration clerk/trainee to do the job. No matter how badly they may have missed things (and I have missed my own shares, too), it's generally preferred that those things are pointed out to us. I appreciate the fact that you noticed the omissions on the RFAR case, but please, in the future, just kindly let a clerk know -- after all, we're the ones that have to make sure that the resolved case is presented the way it needs and was meant to be presented. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 15:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Carnatic rāga

This article seems to be a good idea. The scope for Carnatic music within rāga seemed to be a little restrained by the context of rāga in all forms of Indian music.

Couple of thoughts I want to share on this. Scope can be expanded to other forms of music in South India that either use Carnatic scales and those that contributed to them. Examples are folk songs, chanting, villupattu, etc (as appropriate based on references we can locate). Another area of thought is the duplication of information in multiple pages - this page seems to share with Carnatic music page. Can we work on them in some way that there is less of duplication (causes problems with info is added to only one article)? VasuVR (talk, contribs) 07:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it. Will respond more thoroughly later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The Christmas Sig

Heya, I prefer the black/white version too (for many reasons), but the green and red is more..."festive"?? LOL ♪BMWΔ 09:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It took only ... 5 tries ... to come up with the one I liked LOL ♪BMWΔ 12:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Final warning about acting as a clerk

Please stop editing any page related to arbitration requests or arbitration cases except when required to do so as a participant in a request or case. Some of your edits of the past several months to the procedural pages were welcome and helpful, but you often strayed into into edits that only clerks should be doing on behalf of the Committee and persisted in doing so despite having been repeatedly asked to desist.

Participants in cases have complained that you are acting as a clerk, but that you are not uninvolved and neutral while doing so. You are not a clerk, or clerk trainee. While there are a number of edits any helpful editor is normally welcome to do to assist in the handling of cases, your persistent refusal to restrict yourself to those leave no choice but to forbid you from doing any of them to prevent further disruption.

To reiterate and make certain the limit is clear: any edit you do on any arbitration procedure page or associated templates (broadly, anything at WP:AC and WP:RFAR and below), except as a participant in a request or case, will be reverted summarily and you will be blocked.

I'm genuinely sorry it had to come to this, — Coren ^(talk) 16:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well said Coren, and I back up what Coren says. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As a Committee member, I must agree with Coren. It is a shame it must come to this, but sometimes it must. Please do not violate the restriction placed upon you; nobody wants to see you blocked, including me and Coren. I hope you have a nice Christmas, if you celebrate it. --Deskana (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hello Ncmvocalist! I just wanted to wish you and your family a merry Christmas! May this Christmas be full of great cheer and holiday spirit. Have a great day and a wonderful New Year, from The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M._Cupertino

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

How to use this top Indian Wikipedian list for effective collaboration

Hi, I have added a section 'How to use this list for effective collaboration' on User:Tinucherian/Indians WP page to see if we can put this list to really good use, pl give your thoughts on the same and we can take it further from there. Thanks. Vjdchauhan (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hinduism/Assessment#Participants

Please bold your name here if you are active and can be approached for an assessment request. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:17, 12 January 2009 (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)

WQA

Thanks for noting that Teledildonix314 issue was already at AN/I. We generally use the NWQA template to mark that. (I've updated the page). Please don't put an archive box on WQA sections --conventions for archiving are explained here. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:47, 2 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)

RE: Huh?

Sorry I was not more clear. I -and probably everyone else- recognize that his extended block was way over the top. However it was fixed in short order and the issue resolved. Everyone makes mistakes, and I see little point in riding people mercilessly when they screw up. However your insistence on "having the last word" with the aggressively worded resolved tag was also way over the top ... which is probably why three different people tried to re-write it to be more neutral.

However since you have not reverted the latest person to re-write the tag using neutral language, I will assume that you have recognized your mistake and decided to stop edit warring over the issue. As I said earlier, I do not believe in riding people over their mistakes, which is why I am not going to cast any stones.

Everyone wins when people learn from their mistakes, so personally, I am thrilled that you and Deacon both gained from this otherwise unpleasant situation. Again I apologize for any misunderstandings caused by my lack of specifics. Thank you, Kralizec! (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, everyone makes mistakes; but that's a mitigating factor rather than a justification. And of course, I'm not blameless; ideally, if I was a user of another status, I wouldn't have cared enough to insist so. I'd have gotten over this by now, but given that this, in my opinion, expresses an intention of pursuing dispute resolution, this is still an issue.

If for a moment, there was a glimpse that he understood what the mistake was, I would've overlooked him refactoring my comment and we wouldn't even have gotten this far. He showed all appearances against understanding the problem and was unreceptive to the feedback he got from no less than 5 users at the discussion. He then tried to hide the problem in the concluding tag by talking about motives that don't exist (in editsummary, discussion, and subsequent discussions - including above!) Other than being provocative, what does that intend on achieving? In other words, he did not act in a way that you'd expect an admin to, even after the mistake.

Dayewalker wound up climbing on a high horse and reverted on the grounds that Deacon is an admin. That was plainly unhelpful in the absence of discussing it with me or notifying me, in the presence of 5 users having a problem with Deacon's action, and given that the tag was written by the most involved user of all: Deacon. Until Alex's intervention, Deacon continued revert-warring.

I would've walked past your message as I considered it closed. But as Dayewalker would've no doubt added your message into the diffs collection and construed it to mean that I'm the sole problem here, I felt a need to speak. I was annoyed that you suggested casting a stone in my direction without looking at the mitigating factors from my perspective. You've talked about 3 users reverting; I'm talking about 5 users opinions on his action, and several other users who strongly feel on his general approach to adminning - merely insisting on writing out this opinion does not make it a personal attack, nor does it warrant having the stone flung in my direction. I made one mistake in reverting; but he didn't merely just make mistakes in his block, and his reverting - he did more than that. Hope you understand what I'm getting at. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are concerned about a DR or RfC from Dayewalker, then this may help put it into perspective. Regarding your "3 users reverting vs. 5 users' opinions" concern ... having an admin decision reversed via AN/I consensus rarely causes more than a trout-slapping for the admin who screwed up (again, most of us recognize that everyone makes mistakes). However edit warring is against policy and often results in people getting blocked. As an un-involved admin, I see both issues as being a concern, however only one might necessitate administrative action on the part of me or other admins. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the diff you provided puts it into perspective - please explain.

If there was to be prevention, it wouldn't be equitable to make me the only one. Just because 1 other editor mirrored his revert or because he made less reverts or just because he has tools is no justification. (Note: Alex acted to try to resolve the dispute on the actual page, rather than use the same revert) Again, the user you would not throw a stone at was playing games. If you're experienced with dealing tendentious/problem/civil-pov pushing editors, you will not find it difficult to see the edit-war mentality in this: eg will ameliorate the bad appearance of "edit warring" in any random admin's eyes should make your alarm bells ring, along with the rest. Would you be able to justify inequitable blocks in the interests of this project? No. Enforcing the relevant policy in such a manner was not how it was envisaged by the community, yet, if you were throwing stones, you say you'd promote his mentality in the name of a letter rather than what was intended in spirit. ArbCom wanted admins to enforce policy that is both in letter and spirit, rather than just to the letter. This comment may not be worded very well, but I think you'll understand the point it makes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like I pasted the wrong diff. Here is what I meant to say: "If you are concerned about a DR or RfC from Dayewalker (a la [2]), then this may help put it into perspective." Sorry for the mixup. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

3 admins said the block should be overturned (Orderinchaos, Xeno, Georgewilliamherbert), 5 if you count SirFozzie's conditional and Tznkai's lack of opposition, 2 expressed no opinion on the matter or were merely criticizing Giano (Newyorkbrad, Protonk). Georgewilliamherbert was the only admin to follow Giano and declare that the original block was bad too, though he respected that this was a minority position and didn't overturn that. My position was essentially the same as SirFozzie's, but I wanted to leave any decision until close to the expiary of 48 hour the block. There was no reason not to wait until this time, which was why I disapproved of GWH's such quick unblock. Your attempt to depict me as a pariah arrogantly defying the community will is just not accurate, and no-one but you claimed I made the block as purely punitive. I accepted though didn't agree with GWH's overturning of my decision, mostly because of the manner in which it was done. I don't regard it as a particularly problematic decision, but most of admins who turned up in the AN/I thread thought it was overly harsh and I accepted that. I made a decision that didn't stick, but it was clearly within the bounds of normal blocking practice and no-one will ever, as Kralisec said, give me more than a trout-slapping for it. Your own contribution was little more than giving vent to an earlier grudge about me. I shouldn't have edit-warred with you after (the third revert I made was marginal edit warring), but should have tried to secure outside involvement earlier. My explanation is, as always in these scenarios, failing to predict the other user (you) would be so persistent; that aside, your edit was wrong and did have to be removed. But I really can't grasp the mentality you are showing where you accuse others of revert-warring when you yourself reverted more; I just don't understand how you're not able to grasp an irony like that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The community is not purely constituted by administrators Deacon; that's been long-established. No one disputed the incivility; I said that pretty clearly in my review. But what was unanimous was that you should not have blocked or block-extended. Adding SirFozzie, myself and Giano would make 6 users who disagreed with your block (7 if Tznkai was to be included). There was nothing preventative in keeping the block for longer than that, given the user's assurance. I don't recall having a grudge with you at any point - could you explain why you've made such an assumption other than strongly disagreeing with something I've said during/after this incident? It was an honest review; no different to those I've given for many other admin actions - the way I met LessHeard vanU for the first time was through a similar review. By contrast, his response was far different to yours.

As for revert-warring, having read this, I can see why you can't understand. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Gents, the carcass is so beaten and bloody it can no longer be identified as a horse. Let's move on. –xeno (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify since I see my name mentioned, my post at the beginning of that thread was not meant to criticize everyone, just to ask for comments on the block (original and extended) so that it could be reviewed quickly. I also reminded that the people mentioned in the request should be advised of the discussion which is a usual courtesy. Although I had my personal opinion on the blocks, I had decided not to express an opinion because of the possibility that the matter might come to arbitration at some point. Incidentally, I also agree that the ongoing discussion has outlived any usefulness it might have had. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Suits me. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Luckily, I have Kralizec's talkpage watchlisted, or I would never have known I was being discussed both there and here. Ncm, I began making out that page when it became apparent you were not going to stop your edit war to make your opinion known in the resolved tag. As I said, I consider the entire discussion lame and reverted you once, then stopped. My edit summary clearly said "There's no need to edit war commentary into the resolved tag, [3]" and as such, I wasn't going to. You seemed dead-set on changing the tag to reflect your opinion on the situation, both adding the "punitive" tag and replacing it five more times. You were edit warring, and I filed the diffs away in case you wouldn't listen to reason. When you were reverted by the third different editor, you stopped, and so I did not file a report of any sort. Your comments to me and to other editors (and indeed, above) didn't seem to show that you understood what had happened and that you were edit warring, so I just finished the page and saved it.

I have no desire to file a report on you. I'd much rather not have contact with you again, to be honest. At the same time, if this situation comes up again (as you seem to keep returning to it), I'd like to have the diffs available to show any admin my conduct. Dayewalker (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I'd quite clearly said that this was over, and did not take any further action, you still chose to compile that page; this was the sole cause for me initiating this discussion both here, and Alex's talk page, despite considering this informally resolved. In these circumstances, I see no good cause to have created this page so late in the dispute - but what's done is done. Thing is, if you intend on keeping that page like similar pages you've created earlier (including as far back as December last year), then I will make a move to have them deleted, as some or all or not compliant with userspace requirements. I hope it will not become necessary for me to do so. In this case particularly, those diffs, as well as the accompanying commentary, aren't designed to show your conduct in this matter as you assert at the end of your comment. My views on your involvement and approach to this are already well known so I need not repeat them. The only part of your comment that is worth explicit endorsement at this point is about rather not having contact with you again - that's mutual. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving this here so we can take this discussion off of Kralizec!'s page, that's not the page for it. Ncm, if you're going through my contribs all the way back to December of last year, then you're clearly stalking my edits. Please stop, and leave me alone. Dayewalker (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The ANI title is no more of an attack than this frivolous claim - they either both need to be refactored as attacks, or they both are mere allegations. It appears the latter is true given Dayewalker's failure to refactor his comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI

You've made your case; step back, and let others evaluate. More posts will just annoy admins. THF (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Just read this; I agree - I can't be anymore clearer than I have already. Thanks for the heads up :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidea

This rolled off the front page. Does an admin give formal notice, or is there a different next step? THF (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the note - I've just gotten back from travelling so I'm still catching up. Usually either an admin or an uninvolved user gives the notice - I'll give it in this case. It'll also be posted at WP:AN shortly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to message on my talk

• On 5 Feb, I archived nominations upto 27 Jan, in the Jan section. Two reasons:
  • Jan was over
  • The last assessment was done 27 Jan. There was a wide gap of > a week, for other reviewers to cross-check and nominator to view the changes

So when should a nomination be archived? As per Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Assessment, "Completed requests are usually placed in the archive.", which I interpreted as archive after completing request. Are there more unwritten rules I should know, since I am new in the India assessment dept? I hope you can guide me through.

• I will henceforth put "W/o comments"/"with comments" comments.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject India/A-class review: I was hoping that some "experienced" members of Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Assessment, would put forth some new ideas. I just complied some of the ideas that were unanimous. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 02:36, 1 March 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 ^Talk 05:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Replied. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:35, 20 February 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 ^(converse) 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 ^(converse) 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 ^(converse) 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 ^{Son of the Defender} 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: [4]. 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment working group. I have always regarded WP:India as one of the most successful and active projects, and I was wondering if you thought that an A-Class review system might be appropriate for WP:India, similar to those used at WP:MILHIST and WP:FILM? It strikes me that there will be many Indian topics that require expert knowledge for judging completeness and quality of content. Do you think there would be support for such a move at WP:India? Or a more basic system? Feel free to reply here. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

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. Wikipedia should only appoint people to handling complaints if they know the E word - Empathy. MegX (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia: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 ^T 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)

Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz ^talk 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.

Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia: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[5] 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 Wikipedia 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 - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aitias/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 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/wiki/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)

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, [6] 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)

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 ^(t/a/c) 01:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Closure of EddieSegoura's ban appeal. –xeno ^talk 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 ^Contribs 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 ^Contribs 07:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Re: Email

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

Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 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/^2¢/_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 [7]. 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: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions is just a section transclusion of Wikipedia:General sanctions and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, and the original pages are untouched. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll probably also want to duplicate your community sanction wording on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions to Wikipedia:General sanctions; the two pages are out of sync now. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 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 ^[talk] [pf] 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, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ncmvocalist. --auburnpilot's sock 15:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia: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, Nja²⁴⁷ 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 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

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

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

You wrote this about my reopened Wikiquette alerts [[8]]

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. [[9]]--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)

Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia: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) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

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 85th 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, 11,085 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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,1 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! — [sd], 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^Talk 12:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was already going to suggest you look at this, Ncmvocalist, because you were the closing admin for the ban. I cannot review the article in question, because Bjweeks speedied it. While I'd agree that this article would technically violate the ban, on the face, the material quoted may have been quite proper, in itself, assuming it was reliably sourced. In any case, PjHaseldine has clearly been attempting to make useful contributions while acknowledging and cooperating with the ban, and had declined to create an article that would have been similarly a problem, just today, so a two-week block, for this editor who hadn't been blocked for anything since 2007, seems harsh. Before asking Bjweeks about it, I wanted to get your opinion. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Unavailable, at least around the time at which these messages were posted - apologies for any inconvenience caused, but thank you for keeping me informed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

AN/I discussion involving you.

Is here. --GoRight (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Unavailable, at least around the time at which these messages were posted - apologies for any inconvenience caused, but thank you for keeping me informed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter, Volume IV, Issue 2 – July 2009

Project news File:India 1947 India Flag 3 and half annas.jpg A number of India-related articles have lost their featured article status, including Sikkim and Mumbai. The article about Gandhi was also demoted for referencing and image quality issues. Since then, Mumbai has been brought back to good article status, thanks to the efforts of Kensplanet and others. Transport in India was promoted to good article status, thanks to the efforts of Rsrikanth05, SBC-YPR and GDibyendu. Several new workgroups have been formed: WikiProjects Railways in India, Education in India and Transport in India. Please join us if you're interested in those topics! To do... The articles that have been selected for our latest collaborations of the month are history of Mumbai, Indian Railways, rail transport in India, Indian general election, 2009 and telecommunications in India. We need your help to improve them! These India-related articles are currently on featured article review: Kerala (FAR), Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport (FAR) and rail transport in India (FAR). Would you allow these articles to lose their FA status? Wikipedia Takes Chennai – a scavenger hunt and free-content photography contest – has started in Chennai, along the same lines as Wikipedia Takes The City. We look forward to more contributions from you. To get started, go to the noticeboard. »

From the editors... Wikipedians in Bangalore organised a meetup on 5 July 2009; thanks to Tinu Cherian for hosting the event! Arunram and Tinu Cherian wrote extensively about the meetup, which was also covered by Wikizine, Headlines India and The Wikipedia Signpost. Photos have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Sunil Abraham from the Centre for Internet and Society has offered to help host such events in the future. All in all, the meetup was a great success. Watch out for the next meetup! » Nichalp, an Indian bureaucrat and major contributor to more than 23 India-related featured articles and lists, was desysopped over allegations of paid editing and using sock puppets. An RfC about paid editing was opened as a result of this incident. A prolific editor and administrator, Bhadani is among the top ten Wikipedians by number of edits across the English Wikipedia. Congratulations to Bhadani for also making the most number of edits among Indian Wikipedians! Are you subscribed to wikimediaindia-l to learn about the latest developments of forming the Indian chapter of Wikimedia? Did you know that there are IRC channels for Wikipedians interested in India like you? Check them out at #wikipedia-in connect and #wikimedia-in connect! Wikipedia's India quiz remains a hotspot of the community by continuing to attract old and new Wikipedians. You are invited to join in and have fun! This is your newsletter, and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome – so feel free to join in! Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing! — Ncmvocalist, RegentsPark, [sd] 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. Delivered automatically by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 15:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I added the words "the scope of" to your proposal on ANI. Just seems to make more sense.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi, long time no see. I saw you close the thread on Taivo, but that does not look like a match of the alleged Taivo's mentioned article, Ziggurat of Ur. I don't think Izzedine's block for his edit warring on Syrian Social Nationalist Party has something to do with Taivo's complaint or alleged incivility. I think edit waring is edit warring and etiquette matter is etiquette matter, but since you've been active there for a while, so I might be missing something. Regards.--Caspian blue 14:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, indeed, feels like a very long time. Thanks for your consideration (and question) - I hope my answer will make sense. A conflict/dispute cannot exist without at least 2 parties; when only 1 party is available, the conflict/dispute is no longer a conflict/dispute. So if a party is blocked, or prevented from editing in the area of conflict, such a dispute becomes resolved. This is even if the block is for something unrelated - but in such cases, it can mean that the resolution is temporary. Of course, there are exceptions, such as if there are unjustified sanctions, or if two parties are formed by more than 2 editors.

In this case, I've marked it as resolved for the marked reason. However, as the block is short and unrelated (meaning that the resolution may be temporary), and as the etiquette conclusion (re: Taivo) hasn't been written in yet, I haven't put archive tags to close that WQA completely. In any case, I do agree that the current conclusion should specify that the edit-war was a separate matter - will fix that now. Does that help clarify for you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed and quick answer. Yes, I agree with you assessment, and cleared my question. The complainer seems stand on his own thin ice regardless of the Taivo's alleged incivility or not. Well, I just wondered how thing is going on WQA. Keep up the good work. :) -Caspian blue 14:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong amendment

I was actually going to ask for the mentorship enforcement to be removed myself. However, I didn't know when I was going to do it, but, anyway, I see that I'm certainly not the only one wanting this to happen. I do think it makes perfect sense to remove it. John Vandenberg seems to be accepting. Please look at the amendment page again. I've made a statement there. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks on ANI

Useful time to close that thread. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

NCM didn't close the thread, I did. [10][11] Jehochman ^Talk 06:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I considered your action to be a placeholder, not a closure. If you actually were closing the thread, then I'm sorry to say it was inappropriate - based on (1) your actions with respect to that thread were already in dispute (i.e. the edit war that came to WQA), and (2) the nature of the allegations/comments you made in that thread, and its implications. I would not have been surprised if an edit war had broke out, despite the plea you made in your edit-summary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record

That ANI thread was closed before you posted. I had struck my remark several hours before you suggested that I should. In general, your characterization of matters does not agree with my understanding at all. I'm not interested in debating these matters further because the combatants have apparently agreed to stop going after each other, and that is a good result. The purpose for this post is so that if anybody ever points to your post later on and asks why I didn't refute it, I can point to this diff and say, "Yes, I did refute it." It's no problem that we disagree--I don't expect people to agree with me. Warm regards, Jehochman ^Talk 06:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, although you struck it at 01:43 (UTC), that was 51 minutes before hand (less than an hour); not "several hours before" as you make out. I closed the thread at 02:34 (UTC). On another issue, I considered your action at 02:18 (UTC) to be a mere placeholder - not a closure. The reason for this was because it would (again) be inappropriate if you closed the thread based on (1) your actions with respect to that thread were already in dispute (i.e. the edit war that came to WQA), and (2) the nature of the allegations/comments you made in that thread, and its implications. I would not have been surprised if an edit war had broke out, despite the plea you made in your edit-summary. I was generally very modest in my criticisms in that closing comment; not everybody is perfect (myself included) -in recognition of this, I deleted lot out of the comment I originally typed prior to posting. If your understanding of the situation does not agree with what I've written, that's ok, though I do hope I've clarified the fact that I find issues with what you are saying/refuting. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be best for this controversy to end. Let's just agree to disagree for now. We agree often enough about other matters that I hope this one disagreement will be the exception. Have a good day, Jehochman ^Talk 14:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. You too; take care. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent change in one of the entries in WP:RESTRICT

Hello Ncmvocalist. In this edit you came up with new wording for Rotational's editing restriction. I am not comfortable with the change. Though your new version reads more smoothly, it is less specific. The actual debate on this restriction went in circles for a while because editors did not want WP:MOS to be treated as more authoritative that it really is. The language of 'must not revert another revert' was carefully arrived at, and I think should be restored. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The actual wording at the discussion was "must stop" (which is essentially the same) but that got lost in translation. I've changed it to that. Is that ok? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Allstarecho/Community sanction

User:Allstarecho/Community sanction, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Allstarecho/Community sanction and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Allstarecho/Community sanction during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 07:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

Copied here from Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions by Jehochman ^Talk

Indeed. But there's also another matter. Jehochman himself initiated this so-called "humiliating process" back in March 2008 (when he logged the details of a sanction at this project page, and then created User:Whig/Community_sanction). Now he wants what has become common practice, stopped, due to one objection raised at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Allstarecho/Community_sanction. I'm at a loss as to why more thought was not given prior to initiating such a practice, and why block logs were thought to be inadequate for a simple topic ban. Can someone address these concerns please? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you please stop repeating the same argument, which suggests that Jehochman is a hypocrite. You're starting to get on my nerves. At the time, somebody else suggested creating that page as a place to log blocks under the sanction. I believe it was in fact an arbitrator who suggested doing it that way. Since then, another editor raised an objection that the user space page is a Scarlet Letter. I agree, and think those pages should be removed. Instead, we should create a central mechanism for logging. Jehochman ^Talk

Perhaps when someone begins to get on one's nerves it's better to withdraw. It's perfectly reasonable to point out a discrepancy and request discussion. If that hits a raw nerve then discussion can be postponed. No one is calling names other than Jehochman. Durova²⁹⁴ 15:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What hits a raw nerve is that the question is being repeated after I already answered it at another venue.[12] I have not called anybody any names, Durova. Please correct your post. Jehochman ^Talk 15:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with using quotation marks and no diff is that it can give the mistaken impression that a person has actually said something they haven't. Of course I've read the surrounding discussions; I initiated the ANI thread that led to it. Please be more careful in future. And the suggestion about taking a breather when someone gets under one's nerves is sincere advice. Nobody's out to get you; we're just trying to manage a bad situation without making it worse. Durova²⁹⁴ 15:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But you've made it worse by sidetracking a thread. We're here to talk about this page, not my behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, if your answer to my previous question was adequate enough to address my concerns here, I would not have raised them. I echo Durova's comment. Also, I don't think it's very nice to personalize a discussion by writing 'you're starting to get on my nerves' and then accuse a neutral third party of sidetracking the discussion when they suggest stepping back. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

They're my nerves. I know how they feel. I feel like you are trying to annoy me on purpose. I feel like you are not listening to me, and that you are arguing for the sake of argument. Maybe those aren't your intentions, but that's how I perceive them. Why are you sidetracking this discussion? We're here to talk about better ways to handle this project page. Please address the substance. If you want to talk to me about your perception that I'm a hypocrite, go to my talk page and we'll clear it up. Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Trying to discuss substance. I don't care who may or may not be a hypocrite. If you feel that part of the discussion should be elsewhere, stop replying here and move it. --Kbdank71 16:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday I got yelled at for moving a thread. Anybody else here can move this wherever they like. I won't do it. As you suggest, I'll not reply further here. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Jehochman, please review WP:AGF. Ncmvocalist has never called you a hypocrite. I don't know his intentions, but neither of us can read his mind. The default assumption is that he simply wants to discuss why you had a change of heart about a practice, or perhaps whether there's a nuance that he's missed. Either way, your focus on your nerves suggests this is a discussion best delayed. No angry mastodons are going to break down the door and trample our computers. Have a break; this can all be discussed later. Best wishes. Durova²⁹⁴ 16:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What is unclear about the fact that in 2008 an action was done and nobody objected, but in 2009 now that somebody objects and points out a problem, I'd like to reverse the original action? Jehochman ^Talk 16:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, I'm aware you'd like to reverse the original action, but you seem to be repeatedly missing the crux of my concerns. The objection raised was not unforeseeable. Which arbitrator made the suggestion? Where was the discussion that went alongside the action? Why was more thought not given? What happened to the block log when enforcing topic bans? Can we avoid such after-thought actions in the future? How? What should we do?

I object to moving this discussion as these are substantive questions that are relevant and need answering prior to putting the issue to bed. Your approach over the past few days is a separate matter, and sure, that, along with your perceptions (which I believe are unfounded) belong here or at yours. On the other hand, my concerns were brought up at the right venue, and should firmly stay there without modification. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are all valid questions, but I'm a forward-looking guy. I want to make things better, and prefer not to spend my energy and my time combing through ancient diffs. You may copy this content to where ever you like. I don't think the userspace pages were a big deal; they are not easily found. However, if a user objects, we should not do something that annoys them if it can be avoided. I think digging into the history and then discussing the matter at length is probably risking needless drama. Let's just fix it, and go edit some articles. Sincerely, Jehochman ^Talk 16:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Time for a breather; will continue this later. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The short-term fix to the current situation is dealt with at the MFD already. Yet, the long term solution/fix involves going through this process that is necessary for improvement. However, I think the associated costs are nominal by comparison. Except for bots, this area concerns real people who affect this project, and I would rather not see a continuously needless cycle of mistakes and procedural-problems in this area. I think that's the way forward, given that this affects more than just one dispute. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread

I replied to your comment on ANI. In the future if you have a problem with something I've done as an admin, please just talk to me about it, and don't make guesses about my motivations, or undo the thing I did without even bothering to clarify the situation. Other admins should not even do that, and obviously you are not one of those. I'm afraid you quite misread the situation, which could have been avoided had you simply dropped a note on my talk page (if you want me to explain the matter further I can do so here, though I don't care either way). I'm quite easy to communicate with and would have listened to your concerns and almost certainly done what you did in the end, even though I think that was probably unnecessary. Lecturing me on ANI and hinting at some sort of impropriety was definitely unnecessary. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the biggest causes of some of your misunderstandings would be the unreasonably delayed notification; I appreciate that and again, apologize. In another way, I could've worded my initial response at ANI a little bit better. That said, I hope I've clarified those misunderstandings, as well as my position in my response at ANI. If you think there's anything we need to still discuss, user talk pages are probably a better place - but if you feel you should respond at ANI to something I said there, you are most welcome to do so also. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

comment at WT:AN

Hi, Thanks for that. No objection whatsoever to your actions, nearly made the same call myself. Cheers, Ben Aveling 21:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed this

Edit summary.[13] I'm not sure what you're getting at, but maintaining a meta page in this way does not require authorization, and there was nothing reckless about what I was doing. I'm not trying to assert any ownership, quite the opposite: nobody has much been minding things so the pages need some help from time to time. Keep in mind it is community sanctions, and the community has been watching over them. This is as far as I know a new structure for Wikipedia and we are learning as we go. The original structure (which I helped set up as much as you) was reasonably fine at first but it grew burdened with too much stale discussion over time and stale / resolved requests for enforcement. That meant we needed an associated talk page, and an associated request for enforcement page, each with its own archive, rather than mashing them onto a single page. But it was in talk space and talk pages can't have their own talk page in turn. At first I tried creating them in article space but someone objected and moved the pages, leaving a bunch of broken links. It was late and I was sleepy, so I tried the best I could to repair the links and move it all to meta-space, which made a lot more sense. I accidentally left a few redirects, which as you can see are easy enough to fix, but I would hardly call that effort "reckless" or problematic. If anyone had any trouble finding it or had any other complaints, I haven't heard of it. I patterned the structure after the arbcom ages and various administrator noticeboards.

I don't really understand the point of this edit.[14] I thought it would be an improvement to note the difference between official sanctions under article probation, and sanctions for edits that happened to involve those pages. I hadn't foreseen any contention here, but User:Tarc's 3RR block raised the issue that some editors in the latter category would object. On the other hand in some cases, particularly for the "trolls, socks, and vandals" list, it has been useful to have a running list of (many of) the bad faith accounts. What is your thought, going forward, with how we deal with this? Wikidemon (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm mid-way through writing a comment at the discussion - this will hopefully clarify the logging of sanctions. I'll look at this again shortly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Anything you can do to help would be greatly appreciated, and given your experience and position probably a better stab at it than my humble efforts. I was just a little concerned because you seemed to be chiding me for trying to help out - if I had seen anyone else doing so I would have been deferential to them. Wikidemon (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the candid, yet very polite and respectful way in which you've raised this. I'm more than happy to go through it with you, and hopefully we can come up with a solution.

I hope I've clarified the substantive point about the second edit at the discussion [15]. Hopefully that provides a bit of guidance with respect to your question also; but please don't hesitate to ask if you have more questions or concerns on that. :)

On the first part of your comment, my issue was not so much with your moving of enforcement requests, discussion, etc. My issue was more with the following few facts: the log name was changed ("log of sanctions" to "logs"), the page of the logs had changed without the reference to the logs being changed in the official sanction (this makes sanction-logging an unnecessarily longer process in terms of time, and adds unneeded confusion), but finally, the history of the actions recorded in the logs was not located in the history of the logs, so to speak (for example, the diff you used above is in a different history to where this edit is). Although I could fix only 2 of the 3, in my opinion, it was a tad bit reckless and the logs should not have been moved without the official words in the sanction being changed (i.e. authorized) to reflect the new set of logs. I've just thought of an alternative, and that's by using transclusion.

Taht was my only source of complaint/issue; I hope that explains the frustration. Beyond these edits/move I've mentioned, you handled the other pages fine and without an objection from me - and though I didn't make an edit summary to reflect that, that is essentially: very good (i.e. except some of the parts in the above paragraphs I've written here, your help was very much appreciated). :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll plead reckless in the sense of causing a wreck. I thought you were accusing me of deliberate misbehavior. Anyway, in my confusion and haste (I was trying to patch up all the links while getting out of the house) I created a redirect that I could not move over, and as you note left the history behind on the original (but renamed) page. And also some mistakes in the links, which you found. One lesson learned is that bold wikignoming on process pages can cause glitches... I hope the final result is workable and will be familiar to admins and participants. Wikidemon (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		This Barnstar is awarded to Ncmvocalist. The bravest acts on wikipedia are acts in which the editor receives no discernable benefit but takes real risks when speaking out about injustices perpetrated on one editor against another. Wikipedia is a more just and welcoming place because of editor like yourself.Ikip (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have seen you around before Ncmvocalist, and although the name seems very familar, I don't think we have ever talked. I deeply appreciate your efforts. Thank you, I wish I could give you more than a simple barnstar, you truly deserve it. Ikip (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to note this is unusual, given that you received a fair amount of criticism from me also. But thank you nevertheless. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

ASE on ANI

I think we both proposed new ideas at the same time. I do think your idea and mine might be the same (I could be wrong). Look at the "New Proposal" section at the ASE thread. I don't think I will get any support votes for it, but it was worth a shot. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Good timing - the orange bar flashed just as I was about to land on your page! :) I'll take a look. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a look, but I think ours are different - mine just restates SirFozzies proposal, with more formal language, and 2 modifications: each violation will result in an automatic community ban for the specified period of time (can only be lifted with community consensus), rather than a discretionary admin block. I think that the complexity and leniency in enforcing your proposal may basically kill it in its tracks. But that said, I can see what you were trying to put together - perhaps an alternate wording may make it more clear and simple though? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I am trying to be a little more lenient and give ASE some more freedom. I don't think anyone is going to go for it though, but I thought "why not give it a try". If you have some ideas on mine to change it around, let me know. I just don't want to see him blocked. He is a good editor and does good work on pages, but he kinda has his head to wrapped around this whole BM thing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Let him vent off-wiki if it helps, but he really does need to move his attention away from BM altogether - that's the spirit of the restriction proposed by SirFozzie, and it works for his own well-being too. It doesn't matter how lenient or restrictive we are, or how much we delay or hasten fate. If ASE has no intention of complying with his restrictions in every possible way, he will be blocked. Remember, at the end of the day, all we can do is find ways to encourage (even compel) him to take the right path - we're helpless beyond that. It's all in his hands and how he chooses to use these opportunities given by the community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand...and that is another reason I don't think my proposal will do well since I am kinda giving him an opening to report Bluemarine after 12 hours or before via an admin. Oh well, ya win some ya lose some. I do agree with you though, he needs to find a new part of Wiki that doesn't involved BM. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. By the way, you may want to look at the path he's taken since he returned from the latest block. 08:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am in support of your proposal on AN/I. Thanks for letting me know.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 18:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome! :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE

Just wanted to tell you about my spellcheck.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith drama queen

So what the hell did you read it as? Why the emphasis on friend? And, as always, I don't see you giving a damn about Bluemarine's misbehaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Seicer obviously felt that Neutralhomer was making bad faith assumptions about Bluemarine in filing the report - BM did not violate his restriction; Thatcher's clarification on BM's talk page makes that crystal clear. In other words, that Neutralhomer was creating needless drama by filing that ANI. I also read Seicer's comment as emphasising "friend" to indicate that Neutralhomer's level of involvement may be a little too deep - in other words, uninvolved users are unlikely to agree with Neutralhomer's assessment of the situation. I'm not saying Seicer's choice and use of words was necessarily ideal, but it cannot be characterised as a personal attack either. And on your final gross assumption of bad faith, I was looking at BM's "misbehaviour" (which should read more as poor judgement), but found that the noise created by your posts was detracting from the issue. In the future, I will not tolerate this sort of conduct from you, and you will find yourself restricted if you continue to use this approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I shall bear in mind in future your warning that reports of homophobic abuse will result in threats of blocks against those making the complaint. DuncanHill (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Context

Please see my comments at Bluemarine's user talk and the related ANI thread. Durova³⁰⁶ 23:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also added a comment [16] which hopefully clarifies what my understanding of the situation was back then, and is now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding that. Under the circumstances, the best thing overall would be for him to step back and let other people manage that problem. Best regards, Durova³⁰⁶ 15:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sanchez, etc.

Thanks for clarifying. While the incessant drama around this situation is interesting to observe from a distance, its entertainment value diminishes at close range. Obviously, the best course would have been for ASE to take that article off his watch list and pretend it doesn't exist. Bringing up that obscure reversion of an IP's lone entry was just begging to get blocked. I can't figure out what the deal is, but that's something ASE needs to figure out for himself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)