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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 [1]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

NCM didn't close the thread, I did. [2][3] Jehochman ^Talk 06:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What hits a raw nerve is that the question is being repeated after I already answered it at another venue.[4] I have not called anybody any names, Durova. Please correct your post. Jehochman ^Talk 15:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edit summary.[5] 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.[6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [7]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

I've also added a comment [8] which hopefully clarifies what my understanding of the situation was back then, and is now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, thanks. LTSally (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also, it seemed that I edited some other version of an older WP:WQA page and it ended up in a dead discussion page. --A3RO (mailbox) 04:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, when I went to go edit it, I didn't know I was editng a template. --A3RO (mailbox) 04:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with your decision to remove the information, it still remains a legite resolution; irregardless if it escalates a dispute. Thanks and happy editing! --A3RO (mailbox) 04:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The page you are editing is for users who are posting an alert; they are involved, and if they issue warnings, they potentially escalate a dispute. It's always better for an uninvolved person to issue such warnings. It is absolutely not appropriate to add to that overview. As for users who are responding to an alert, that is part and parcel of the "discussion" component - WQAs should result in either the subject receiving a message of some sort on their talk page, or the filing party. Warnings are a final resort only and do not substitute simple reminders for established contributors, or other forms of discussion. Moreover, we don't only look for (or hand out warnings for) policy-prescribed conduct issues as suggested by what you inserted - discussion of general conduct issues not specified in policy is equally important. Finally, appropriate courses of action need to be taken for the circumstances of each case; we don't explicitly point out each and every way to resolve a complaint as we're just one step in DR. The resolved tag specifies the principle upon which a discussion can be marked resolved. If any user disputes a closure, then they have a choice of requesting it be reopened (if it's appropriate, that can happen - otherwise, no). If they still dispute the closure, then they can escalate the dispute from the WQA accordingly if it means that much to them - however, not complying with uninvolved opinion is usually not a good sign. Hope that helps. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In good faith, I will respect your decision. Every dispute is different and the edits involved can be deemed fit or unfit by the person reviewing them. Unfortunately, situations like this does happen. Thanks for your input. Happy editing! --A3RO (mailbox) 04:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]