Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:58, 9 April 2009

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

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

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

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

do any or all of the following.

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

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

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

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

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

RFC/U

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

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

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

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

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

Ola!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

archiving

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

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

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

Rang De Basanti

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

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

Haseldine COI restrictions

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

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

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

Dream Focus and Collectonian

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

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

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

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

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

Award of a Barnstar

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

RFAR/Aitias

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

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

Would like your opinion

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

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

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

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

A-Class assessment at WP:India

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

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

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

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

RE: e-mail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neon white comment

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

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

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

Thanks for your closure of the WQA

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

Ryulong RfAr

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

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

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

Thank you

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

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

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

MZMcBride arbitration

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

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

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

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

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

Re MZM Rfar

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

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

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

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

My failure to AGF

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

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

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