User talk:Ncmvocalist

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)

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)

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)

Maybe

The derision on the thread was made more than 24 hours ago. The editors were notified. There's nothing to talk about anymore. Maybe it was inappropriate for me to archive it (and I archived only resolution part), but IMO much more inappropriate not to archive it. Okay you reverted me. Fine. Was there anything in particular that prevented yourself from archiving that part? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

See my comment there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw your comments there and I would like to let you know that I will decide myself when, and if I will take a break. Are you saying that Dave issued insufficient message? Are you unsure in his administrative skills? BTW while we are at the subject of administrative skills I would like to let you know that this statement of yours "I think all of you involved in this squabble are likely to end up blocked, until/unless you find more productive ways to resolve your issues, no matter how right or how wrong one party is." (highlighted by me) here shows your inability to administrate. Administrators should distinguish between "right" and "wrong", and if one cannot, it might be a good idea to resign the rights.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not an administrator; I am however well aware of what constitutes a sufficient notification that prevents wikilawyering, and when an editor engages in conduct that is likely to result in a sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah you are not. Then could you please drop me a message, when you apply to be one. See you there :)--Mbz1 (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't be applying though. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well then, I am not advising you to take a break, but I do advise you to butt out, if you do not mind :)--Mbz1 (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sensible advice you ought to be taking yourself. This isn't the first time you've inappropriately (and needelessly tried to) archive something that directly related to you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ncm was correct here, you shouldn't be closing threads you're involved in. Dayewalker (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I concur with Dayewalker. Note to Mbz1, please read → WP:EGO. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 06:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Recall RFA

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Regarding this edit [[1]], it is WP:BOLD and nails the whole process of community consensus. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• +1. SilkTork *^YES! 09:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• +1. -- Cirt (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Properly certified?

As a user familiar with the RFC process, perhaps you could lend some insight as to whether an RFC has been properly certified? Discussion begins at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pmanderson#This RfC is still uncertified. Thanks, –xeno^talk 19:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Technically, that hasn't been properly certified - the sort of progression one should be able to see for a properly certified RfC/U can be seen in this one, though the couple or so RfC/Us since then have somehow scraped through it seems. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

AE discussion

For future reference, the relevant procedures for reversing/appealing administrator enforcement actions are also here, which is probably easier than looking up cases/motions.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you. I don't recall this page (but I remember about AN/ANI). Given the concern expressed in the first couple of lines here about some inconsistency, it would help if the following two suggestions are implemented. First, the notice at the top of the AE page (and any other relevant arb pages) are updated in line with the page you've linked - it would mean both the experienced and inexperienced can look at the same place efficiently. Second, in simple cases like this where an user is clearly trying to convey an appeal to the community, it would be helpful if the actual appeal by the restricted user (that is, the original text they made in the appeal) can be pasted at AN rather than the whole thing being shut down after the community was notified of the appeal. I think both would require explicit authorisation from arbs though.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The first point is actually already addressed in the WP:AE header, where the text from the motion is reproduced. However, it's a lengthy header and the appeal bits are easily overlooked. I don't have time right now to look at this closely myself but I will mention it to one of my colleagues, and see where we go from there. The second point would, as you say, probably involve a broader committee discussion and our current workload being what it is is unlikely to be swiftly resolved. Thanks for the input,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You're awesome

The new WQA interface looks much better! Great job with the design and everything. :p Netalarm^talk 04:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, nearly all of the credit goes to my very talented friend. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Bidgee

Hi Ncmvocalist. I know I've seen you at RfC's before, which I normally read and don't comment on. As such, I'm not quite as confident on the procedure. In your opinion, has the RfC on Bidgee met the minimum requirements of an RfC? Worm^TT 09:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as procedure, I've looked at it and so long as a part of it is shifted to the RfC/U page, it does seem to meet minimum requirements (though the presentation is a bit shoddy) - see what I wrote here to understand what I mean. And, obviously, the question of whether it was necessary to escalate to RfC/U or whether it is going to go very far is a question for others to decide in the views they express/endorse in the RfC/U. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at that. Also on a procedural note, if I get agreement from the certifiers for my proposal (which effectively involes me leaving a note for Bidgee), would there be any issue with closing, since editors have commented? Worm^TT 14:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There still would an issue if the commenting editors disagree - if they think there are other issues that bring the certifiers own conduct into question or the involved users approach to the dispute into question (which they clearly do), then they are probably not going to endorse that note; I imagine they would think the note suggests the issue is with Bidgee alone and is therefore misleading (they were of the view that issues extended beyond the one user).

It can't really be closed early unless the users come to an agreement on the summary (which might include sending a note that you propose), or unless the users agree to close the RfC/U without a summary (but with whatever views/endorsements already provided) or unless it is being overtaken by some other dispute resolution (usually arbitration). The only other option is for certifiers to withdraw their certification which will allow the RfC/U to be deleted (but they can only exercise that option while the RfC/U remains open for comment - and obviously, a note can't refer to a RfC/U which is non-existent or deleted). Hope that helps (and more importantly, makes sense). :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it does, and means tat I will be looking at this RfC differently, as something that will be going ahead. I'll have a think about what to do next, most probably offering an outside view. Thanks a lot for your help here. Worm^TT 15:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

February has 28 days

You closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan. This has been very difficult for me to respond to, without responding in kind to some uncollegial comments. I have been working on my response. I went to the page to quote some comments, only to find you closed this on March 15.

It was initiated on February 15. Can I remind you that February only has 28 days. I think that means that 30 days is tomorrow.

Yes, I know that some participants may see it as unfair of me to leave comments on the 29th day. But, as I wrote above, I have found it difficult for me to respond to, without responding in kind to some uncollegial comments. I apologize to them. FWIW I would have no objection for the discussion staying open long enough for them to respond.

So could you please revert your closure? Geo Swan (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine; however, I am concerned that despite being sent more than two messages regarding the status of your response, you failed to clarify that status or to seek assistance. I note that despite reverting this closure yourself, you have not yet submitted a response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The RfC has been open for more than a week after Geo Swan's response. Should it be closed with the summary you drafted? Because there has been no opposition to the summary, I don't think it is necessary to notify all the participants to review and discuss it. Cunard (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Geo Swan shows that Geo Swan has become active and User talk:Geo Swan#User:Iqinn's reply to I request you try to avoid triggering edit wars indicates that the problems mentioned at the RfC may be continuing. Would you close the RfC with the drafted summary? Cunard (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the RfC. Cunard (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. As you know, I had hoped that I could convince a more direct agreement from both users off wiki but my impressions are that it's going to take more time than it is worth (something which I don't have a lot of which is why it kept going down on my 'to do' list). This is certainly better than nothing though, so I hope it will have the desired effect in practice. Thank you for the timely update, as well as your help and understanding in general. I really appreciate it, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, but all of the credit belongs to you for spending time mediating during a dispute you probably weren't interested in. A balanced summary that will hopefully put an end to the drama. Cunard (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost Barnstar

		The Signpost Barnstar
		For your excellent and consistent work as the writer of the Signpost's Arbitration report, which I was allowed to witness during my past year as the Signpost's editor, I award you the Signpost Barnstar. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

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

WT:BLOCK

Sorry I got impatient on the block page (I sometimes think I must have a cripplingly low boredom threshold) but no, I could not face researching the sections above for warnings. Actually, proving my lack of clue, I sort of assumed that a user referred to in such terms was most probably Jack. :-) Bishonen | talk 18:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

No worries, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

WQA

At the WQA, what would you have done differently? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Instead of "Do not make baseless accusations against me, or involve me in your dispute.", something like "Not sure what long term pattern you are talking about or how that is relevant to whether WLU has actually made personal attacks. Though you've made some claims, I don't think the evidence you have given supports those claims. But I can't comment as to whether other uninvolved editors agree with me or not." As to the closing, the allegation is about civility so NWQA is actually not right. I wouldn't put any tag on it; more reasoned discussion may have produced some better outcome. If not, or if that was all that could be done and I must put a tag on it, perhaps "stuck" to say no resolution between parties. ANI might be (in part) correct for wikihounding, and AN3 for edit-warring, but I would not have recommended either venue unless the request specifically asked for admin action. Would not have made the comments dated 23 July either; need to know when to let it go stale unless he is genuinely wanting some perspective - in which case direct answers to the questions would be more helpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for the response, I agree, in hindsight, that I should have let it go stale. I pointed to ANI because there was an active and ongoing discussion on the wikiproject medicine page about this topic that was getting very messy. Some of the editors also have a large history of previous interactions with each other [2][3]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for draft RFC/U review

You're said to be an expert on these matters. While I am sure you're busy, would you be able to take a look here and grant some feedback? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see you back

Hello there, Nice to see you back... Hope you will be a bit active again... Regards. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi! :) Thanks; nice to see someone familiar even after all this time. I'm not expecting to be online very often at this point, but more than before. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Just checked in today after a while off-wiki and was pleasantly surprised to see you at ANI. Good to see you back and hope you're here to stay! --regentspark (comment) 23:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hiya...your return has made my day...I have not seen you online in ages! Actually, I was pleasantly surprised by how quickly VasuVR noticed my return (barely made a few edits I think), but it was depressing when I found that so many went on wikibreak or were not longer active - yourself included. At the time I left, I could see the ultimate fate of the project and accepted it, but I'm here with the mindframe that it can be delayed at least. It's funny that with so many neat bells and whistles (improvements technically to the site) since I left, the deeper issues and fundamental problems thrive in a lot of ways and still chip away at the roots; that part is a pity and I don't miss it at all. Anyway, I am very pleased to see you back also, and hope you've had a well-rested break - and that you're staying for as long as I am here at the very least. :) Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But, this is merely a curiosity visit. Wikipedia is, unfortunately, a time sink of colossal proportions with no obvious real life return and I find that it detracts from the many other things I would like to do. Fowler has the right approach to editing here. Edit for a few months and then disappear for long periods of time. My goal is to emulate him as far as possible :) But it is good to see you providing your common sense perspective again - much needed on wiki. --regentspark (comment) 18:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and my findings are fairly indifferent. I expect I will be following a similar example too. :) As for common sense perspective, I find that attempts are too often made to drown or discourage it, as it usually does not bode well with the other agendas being pushed around at this place. Unfortunately, the product doesn't match what is said on the label/packaging. Overall, that's when it seems that the time, effort, stress, or hassle is simply not worth it. Well, I hope you do hang around for a bit longer at least, but I can't blame you and will probably follow suit soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Pono (digital music service)

There is a tendency (on the Internet), in the domain of Digital Audio, to misinform people and I have been a victim of this for too long. I have found that people on Internet want to harm the movement of PonoMusic and music itself as an art form and they refuse to understand anything else beside conservative studies that are around ~92 years old. These people are uneducated about the subject and/or have hidden agenda. I want this to change as I strongly believe in high definition music. Sorry for the numerous edits, I don't write often. Joey192 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Scholarlyarticles

Thanks for the close and your summary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ncmvocalist. I'm a bit new to this. I've noticed many discussions about me (of which i was not informed)- a bit difficult to grasp (or even find) at once. The most serious charge was WP:Libel charged leveled against me by Neil|N in connection with James Rosemond. May I or he address that on the BLP board where I believe it is most appropriate? Of course I would need clear archives on James Rosemond. As they stand they are illegible and appear to have been corrupted. Would it be possible to get clear chronological archives on the subject? It would be impossible to argue the data with this. Gotta work. I'll check back on your page in a few day on your talk board. BestScholarlyarticles (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Par for the course. Accusations without a diff. And competence issues as no archives have been "corrupted". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Disruption? What disruption? What was disrupted by my action?

There is nothing more disruptive than closing an ongoing discussion. True serious disruption involves article space. This is about a discussion on a talk page - a discussion which is the hallmark of how we achieve consensus on Wikipedia. If you want to accuse me of me being disruptive[4] by reopening that discussion, then please explain what or who exactly was "disrupted" by my action. It's like accusing someone of stealing without identifying what was stolen. Without a stolen object, there has been no stealing. Without a disrupted article, activity or person, there is no disruption. Please identify what you believe was disrupted by my action, or rescind your accusation. An apology would be appropriate as well. --B2C 16:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

An apology for what? While it might be your personal view that true serious disruption involves or is limited to the article space, the fact that behavioral policies and guidelines have been effected by the Community for all pages on Wikipedia should indicate to you that true serious disruption is not limited to the article space and extends to talk pages too.

Yes, a talk page is a venue where discussions occur so that a consensus can be reached on Wikipedia, but as you would have read from my comment, the policy against edit-warring applies to any page on Wikipedia. If you felt that an action to close a discussion on the article talk page was disruptive, or you were not happy with the conflict evident from the edit-war, or you yourself had a dispute that there was or was not consensus, you are expected to comply with policies and guidelines by utilising Wikipedia dispute resolution. The fact is: you chose not to.

To make matters worse, you also chose to actively breach policies and guidelines by engaging in battleground behaviour. This is evident from your incivility or inflammatory bad faith accusations/assumptions about other contributors (even now), and when you prolonged or participated in the edit war - and to be even clearer than in my comment above, your reversion to reopen the discussion was not exempt from the policy against edit-warring. This type of conduct is disruptive to the editing atmosphere and to the project.

Of course, you may disagree with the behavioral requirements imposed on you through these policies and guidelines, or the extent of the disruption caused by breaching the same. If that's the case, you can seek a community consensus to change the policies and guidelines. However, if you fail to adhere to the requirements in the meantime, your account may end up blocked or you may be banned from the project. Although I personally hope you will voluntarily make changes to your approach very soon so that neither would be necessary, it's beyond my control whether you actually do or not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

When I close discussions due to a good faith application of SNOW, I don't start slapping people with trouts when they are reopened. Neither should you. Re-opening a closed discussion is prima facie evidence that the discussion was closed prematurely. That's all. It's a good faith close; but mistaken. So it's reopened. If it's mistakenly closed again, it can be re-opened again. A repeated closing is obviously disruptive - disruptive to those who are trying to develop consensus through the discussion that is being closed. The re-opens are not disruptive - they're not disruptive to anyone.

If you think a discussion is unnecessary, stupid, or pointless, ignore it. Don't engage. Walk away. Do something else. But don't prevent those who wish to participate from participating. There would have been no edit-warring in this case if nobody had tried to suppress discussion. Reverting a close of an ongoing discussion is not edit warring - it's the R in BRD. If you think a discussion is over, then boldly close. Fine. But if a close is reverted, then join the discussion or walk away. Don't close again. It's called BRD; not BRBRBRBR. And opening up a discussion at AN/I about a discussion you want to close is ridiculous.

It's like people are talking in the town square, perhaps quarreling some, but everything is peaceful. Then some newly deputized thugs come in who decide the discussion is "disruptive" (or some other trumped up charge) and try to break up the discussions. Thankfully in the free world such behavior is unconstitutional. But on WP apparently there is no freedom of speech (and no, nobody was doing anything close to yelling "fire!" in a theater). That's wrong. Nobody should ever be penalized for trying to develop consensus through discussion. Ever. Attempting to reaching consensus through discussion should be encouraged in practice, just as it is in policy.

I, for one, am deeply disappointed with your behavior and the lack of respect you have demonstrated to editors who were doing nothing wrong — just trying to develop consensus about a title by discussing a move proposal — and understandably reverting those who attempted to stop them. --B2C 00:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You say that there would have been no edit-warring in this case if nobody had tried to suppress discussion, but the fact is, that reason does not make the edit-warring acceptable. Editwarring policy expressly says when it is acceptable to editwar, and this is not one of them. If you use that reason again in future to participate in an edit war, and your action is made in good faith, you still are at strong risk of being sanctioned for it. I think my attempts to make you and the others understand why to avoid that behaviour (and warn about the risks associated with that approach) are not disrespectful. In fact, my attempts weren't intended to be disrespectful either.

However, if you disagree, then the next appropriate step for you (and for that matter, any/all of the other users who were involved in this incident or who were slapped with a trout) to seek further input about my conduct using the appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms. I have faith that the community would agree that your disappointment was unjustified, and that as I've said, while you may have had the best of intentions (good faith), your behavior is still unacceptable for the reasons specified on your talk page.

As to why, policy does indeed say that if a bold action is reverted (BR), there should be discussion (D) - but it also says that is not appropriate to continue a series of reverts to reinstate or maintain some sort of status quo in the meantime. What I am suggesting is not BRBRBR as you indicate; what happened was simply BRRRRR. If the last reversion to re-open or close the discussion was unacceptable to you or any other user, consensus should be built by seeking dispute resolution. That is what is encouraged in policy, and is what is being encouraged in practice. The use of reverts is expressly discouraged in practice, in the same way that it is discouraged in policy. There was nothing to justify the rate at which reversions were made, and each of them was disruptive to the editing environment. If you don't agree with the policy in that you think it's wrong or you think "no one should be penalized", then you are achieving nothing by telling me about it; you need to (as I already indicated in my last reply) seek a community consensus to change the policy. In the meantime, by simply refusing to comply with it or ignoring it, you risk being sanctioned. It really is that simple. Good luck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Two Qs for you

I was on your user talk page typing a message just as you added your apology/comment at the ANI. I think that was a really big step to take, and I applaud you for your initiative as it so happens. [...] Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Who do you perceive said apology is to?
2. Who do you feel/think said apology should be to?

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Please move on in accordance with the advice that many users have already given you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It's so-so easy for anyone to advise "forget about it" when they aren't the offended party. And WP:STICK as an artificial and shallow meme used mostly to service the needs of the issuing user (be they bored, irritated, lazy, whatever) not the victim. I've seen you write lengthy commentary at other admins' Talks suggesting their behaviors in their adminships haven't been ideal or perfect. But I had no interest in such fine-tuning in my Qs to you, only recognition of a glaring problem and omission of who got an apology and for what. It's nearly impossible to get straight answers from admin, no one apparently likes to take any stand that could potentially irritate an admin who has already exposed themselved intellectually and ethically with bald and absurd statements in black & white here (example: admin Bwilkins back-tracking when I questioned him on the unaddressed blatant personal attack sent my way by Bushranger when Bwilins replied to me: "So what if you're a narcissist?" then later claimed the "you" in that retort was somehow not referring to me!). After amazingly stupid and grossly offensive and blatantly counter-policy stuff like that pushed in my face for my enjoyment, tell me again how easy it is to "forget about it" (paraphrase of your "move on"). Just for your info and to answer another confused editor wondering why I let something like this consume some of my attention and so forth, I don't see how sticking one's head in the sand accomplishes anything except to embolden the offender. Also I never waste my energy, so all the words and thoughts generated from me over the issues is and has helped me on my own work out what I can or cannot do, or want or do not want to do. Because the system is so corrupt here, unless people like me complain, why ever would it have any cause to change. p.s. This site makes me laugh, because it is the most dumbed-down place I've ever experienced beyond watching many of the old black & white The Three Stooges. "Rant" = "Diatribe" = anything anyone writes that another editor is irritated by or doesn't like and wants to criticize and issue ad hominem or deliver chilling threat over; "TL;DR" = any text of any length that another editor [... the same]; "TENDENTIOUS" = "BATTLEGROUND" = "NOTHERE" = any text anyone writes that another editor [... the same]; and my favorites: "He/she is a net negative for the encyclopedia" = "He/she is incapable of working collegially with other editors" = "He/she is apparently not suited to working on a collaborative project" = I-don't-like-this-editor-they've-miffed-me-so-come-one-come-all-with-torches-lit-to-help-ban-him/her-it-will-be-fun-and-we-get-to-take-out-our-hostilities-and-frustrations-with-life-in-general-all-in-the-guise-of-being-community-minded-editors-simply-following-policy-out-of-dedication-to-what's-best-for-the-encyclopedia-what-a-deal-ha-ha. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a distinction between moving on and forgetting about it; I haven't asked that you do the latter. While I think you have some fair points, I don't think some of your remarks are justified, and I am not so convinced that you are aware when you have wasted your energy. For example, do you think you have taken enough time to think about (or given enough thought to) your comment before posting it here? As you appear pretty aware that you have rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, surely you would realise that someone will end up finding this gem of a comment you made to use as evidence against you at one point or another? Can you point to any instance where your "complaining" has caused any real "change" to the system here for the better? Or is this all just a facade to kill time that you have too much of? I find my time is too limited to do much at all, so any spare time is a pure luxury which I don't have enough of. And even after having had an extensive break from here, I've found that with the exception of some new technical features, the underlying and fundamental problems at this place have remained (and grown) - and aren't being weeded out at a reasonable rate. But like most websites, this is not for everyone. Sometimes it's worth acknowledging when to find something more useful to do with one's time - be it at this website, or whether or not to even spend more time contributing in relation to this one. There's certainly more worthwhile things/interests outside of Wikipedia which can be worth the time and pursuit. But either way, even at this site, I find people always end up reaping what they have sown in some form or another - even if it's not apparent on-wiki or an immediate consequence. It gets them personally often enough too. If you genuinely want to change something here more generally for the better though, when it comes to these sorts of issues, I think you are probably going to have to change the way you go about it because what you have attempted so far doesn't appear to have worked. Anyway, I have no more time I can afford to spare on it, so good luck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't expect your lengthy reply, I appreciate that, I can see you mean well. (There are numerous assumptions and presumptions you've made, however, that don't really apply to me.) Anyway, just so you know, I don't expect anything of you, and wouldn't lean on your time. (I wanted to have some interface w/ you however, in light of your comments to other admins.) I might have some minor answers for your minor Qs, however, I'll be sure to keep it short to not tie up your time. (Everyone's time is valuable in the end; but have you seen how gobs & gobs of time are spent in lengthy ANI/AN threads that are closed with the flippant or even appropriate and certainly classic as to reach meme-status: "Closing. More heat than light."?! Whyforever [does the culture here] start and continue tremendously lengthy threads consuming multiple editors' time, with result in such closes that essentially brand the experience a total loss of time? I guess my point is, if you think I'm wasting my time lately [which I don't see it that way however], then what of the down-the-sewer-significant-time-sinks that are so popular and reoccuring here as to reach meme status!?) Nice chatting w/ you -- you're nicer than I imagined you'd be; thx. Will reply with brevity in a week or so to your points. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC

As you participated in a previous related discussion you are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

‎Recent WP:AN post

This whole situation has arisen because people will not read what I have written. Let me be blunt: you failed to observe that I already told CIreland to make a request, so you gave me a long and irrelevant statement. Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me quote CIreland's comment from higher up on the same talk page where you just left messages. I might ask again when arbitration is concluded. Since I couldn't give him a good answer, and since he didn't feel like doing it now, I decided to be courteous and ask any other administrator for a good answer. You say it is irresponible to simply accede to a request made by an involved party in circumstances where you are not satisfied that you are informed enough to make a call. You're correct: that's why I went looking for an uninvolved administrator, and that's why uninformed and inaccurate comments like yours are thoroughly unwelcome. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

James Clerk Maxwell

Based on your comment at WP:ANI, it seems you have an idea of what this dispute has spawned, so would you like to add an entry for it at WP:LAME? Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: OK, I've tried my hand at an entry there. I don't remember adding any entry there before (or in recent years anyway) so it felt a little bit new for me. Not sure if it can be edited to be more effective, so if you or anyone else feels that way, would be happy for it to be dealt with accordingly. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks! Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Should we sockpuppet check Martin?

Started filling this out, but it's a big project...

11 January 2015

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Martin Hogbin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 86.145.98.85 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Martin Hogbin has been engaging in a largely one-man crusade against calling James Clerk Maxwell Scottish for some time now. Talk:James Clerk Maxwell has literally pages and pages of debates he's started, there's also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Policy_on_nationality_statements, which he started, an RFC there, that he started. Attempts to change Nationality of people from the United Kingdom I don't think it's necessary to go into the whole history here, but you get the idea.

A number of IPs have poked up to support his views, most of them single purpose accounts. I'm using the list pointed out by Ncmvocalist here.

So:

86.145.98.85

86.145.98.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a check of their contributions shows them to be an SPA, outside of a previous edit back in 2008 (to be expected from a dynamic IP) His responses primarily consists of replies to Martin or others, backing up Martin's statements: e.g. [5], [6] ("That I believe is the way Martin Hogbin put it.") - It's hard to know how much to describe, so I'm just going to give a few examples of him doing the same thing as Martin. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to get involved in this I'm afraid (don't really have the time even if I wasn't).

I can say I haven't myself looked for possible sock/meat puppets in detail, and whatever little time and useful assistance I could provide is pretty much in my statement already. But if you can see a link from that material and after analysing other behavioural patterns, then I guess a sock check is a reasonable course of action.

The one other thing I have observed (which isn't in my statement) is that I do recall that Martin seemed to be involved in some arbcom cases previously (the ones I remember him participating in were Speed of light, Monty Hall problem, and Tree shaping). I really don't know or remember the extent of his involvement or whether there were issues with his conduct or whether he was helpful. But the only reason I mention it is because I did think it was weird I remembered that he was around in all of those matters when I was looking at this one.

Still, hope that helps and that the project succeeds in resolving the issues which are currently unresolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Rather hoping it shows he isn't one. It would be far preferable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, his last couple of comments ended with something to the effect of Wikipedia was an "interesting social experiment" to him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

troll turning

re [7]. Please explain how & why you turn the trolling into an error of me. -DePiep (talk)

DePiep, every user who commented there has said that it is not trolling, so it seems to me you are deliberately treading on thin ice. A proper characterisation may have been that his etiquette was not perfect (as he could have approached you personally), but it's so petty that it did not warrant the ANI request you posted. As to your other errors, if you properly indented your comment in the first place, or sensibly fixed your indenting after seeing the OD tag, there would likely be no issue. And in case you don't understand the issue with your indenting, see the way replies are indented between Dirtlawyer1 and Pigsonthewing in the comments immediately above Montanabw's comment, and compare that to the way you indented your reply to Montanabw. You just needed to take a bit more care. But editing his comment (particularly without fixing your indenting issue), and then sustaining an edit-war to change his comment in a way which he clearly did not agree to was terribly inappropriate. The incident, and the way you tried to handle it, has made it clear that you lack the judgment required when (1) editing other people's comments and (2) characterising edits as trolling or users as trolls, so again, I suggest you voluntarily refrain from doing either. Knock it off. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"... that it is not trolling" - not true. Only one commenter said so. Lankiveil (you agreed with) even invented a whole new non-existing case. An other injected content discussion (unnoticed by you then).

"if you properly indented your comment in the first place" - Wrong. It was indented properly [8]. You have based you conclusion on a wrong finding. It is brutal to then tell me to shut up and threat with restrictions. Next time you better be more careful.

"petty" -- does not change the facts. I am surprised that most commenters there stated it is a petty case (could be), and so conclude I am wrong. You too are mixing up this.

Andy's comment does not belong in the TfD. But since you sanctioned it, it now is promoted into an argument for the closer. Great. -DePiep (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Ncmvocalist. I have previously, more than once, asked DePiep not to break indenting in that manner. As here, he denies that there is a problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, Ncmvocalist, there is the risk of feeding the troll. They might show up gravedancing. -DePiep (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• OK, this last one was not helpful so I <s>truck. Ncmvocalist, I'm asking for a few days time to prepare a good post about this. I want to make an elaborated base, and make my points & questions & diffs. From a distance, the line "you are wrong and stop talking" is not appreciated. And I think I deserve a second consideration, with time. -DePiep (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • DePiep, the proper indent is the indent used in the previous comment. So if it's a bullet point, you would indent like how I've done it in this reply (and how Dirtlawyer1 did in the diff [9]). If it's a threaded discussion without bullet points, you would do it in the same way you've done above. But when it's started as a bullet point, the indenting becomes broken if your reply is indented like this [10] because anyone who wants to reply cannot follow the original indent style without the indenting becoming broken. I'm sorry to say that's all the time, and willingness I have to discuss this with you. So if you don't understand want to discuss it further, rather than come back here, you would better spend your time finding someone else to ask about this, or better still, moving on. Thanks and good luck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Airtel Super Singer Junior, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bharathi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request archived

Hi. This is to let you know that I have archived an Arbitration Clarification request involving you to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 20:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

HelP

Please help improve This article Mahabharatham, Aathira (TV series). -- Arnav19 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC) 178.194.86.7 (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Arnav19: Time is never something I have enough of but the sources in the Mahabharatham article are not very good; you should consider incorporating this and this into the article, and focus more on what is said in those two articles and incorporating that content. As for the Aathira article, I don't think it can be saved at this stage I'm afraid. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"Bogus sourcing"

You tagged File:Spoorthi with the Title Trophy after winning the Super Singer Junior 4.jpg as having no source information, labeling the uploader's claim of having personally taken the photo himself as "bogus". Why? It's rather obvious from their contributions that Merinsan is strongly associated with Spoorthi, and while such a conflict of interest may prove problematic in other regards, it also means they may well be able to personally take photos of the subject they're writing about. For all I can tell, the image hasn't been published elsewhere, either, supporting the idea that it was specially created for Wikipedia. Thus I'd ask you to please explain what issues with the sourcing you see. Huon (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Huon: I think merely asserting "own work" does not properly clarify whether the user has personally taken the photos, owns it, and was authorised to upload it here. Leaving aside my other concerns with the veracity of the assertions made by this user, the user has gone some way in clarifying it after my "label", and if that is all that is needed, I leave it there and withdraw the "label". By the way Huon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), given that you think his editing only "may" prove problematic in some regards and given that you (like the other sysops) appear to have taken no action whatsoever in relation to the obvious problems (identified here) for almost 24 hours after it was reported, you would be right if you assumed I am declining to waste more time on this subject until further notice. Your request has given me a lot to think about, so thanks for that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't keep a close eye on that particular noticeboard and wasn't aware of your report; neither had I looked into Merinsan's contributions in detail. They came to the IRC help channel and asked about the image, so that's what I looked into. The article has by now been protected, and a talk page discussion seems to be underway; no further action seems to be required right now. If you want me, specifically, to help with anything, you're welcome to leave me a message, but I can't guarantee I'm faster than the noticeboard. Huon (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

hors de combat

Per ArbCom case I am hors de combat on the blatant BLP issues involved, blatant SPA issues etc. on the "Spoorthi" BLP. You are, of course, correct - and no one is guarding the henhouse at all to speak of. I properly ought not even opine on the AfD per the "evidence" against me at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Changes on Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U

---

Hello, I'm Ncmvocalist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

---

I added a link to tri-Crescendo in the developers' reference because as they comment in their web page, they collaborate in the development of the videogames. You can see it in the following address (in japanese): http://www.tri-crescendo.co.jp/product_info.html

Please, revert the change when you can do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.42.43.30 (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've self-reverted the change for now so that others can review and keep/improve/remove your insertion if necessary, but please bear in mind that it is always best to cite the source that you are relying on for content you insert on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Teekyuu

I edited the Teekyu article because it's actually called Teekyuu

Tēkyū

ē = ee

ū = uu

Therefore it's Teekyuu not Teekyu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.237.117 (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

All of the sources provided in the references section of the article suggest that it's actually Teekyū, and one can only work according to the sources. If you have sources which show that it's actually Tēkyū, you'd best raise and discuss it on the the article talk page. If there's a consensus which supports what you are saying, the changes can be made and it may also possibly go some way towards changing the spelling of the article title too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The ANI report

Hello! Just a reminder: when you closed the ANI report, you forgot to sign as closer. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm a bit late for that now, but thanks for that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Wesley Livsey Jones

What was the problem with this? The source seems to support Jones' prior "Washington representative at large". Also U.S. REPRESENTATIVES FROM WASHINGTON The Wikipedia links on that addition appear consistent. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to put that down to being a mistake on my part; I can't remember reviewing that content, making the revert or issuing the warning at all, and even on reviewing it now, it's not something I'd be comfortable making a call on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Precious

vocal spiral
Thank you, veteran editor defined by appreciation, recognition and nice things, for contributions to articles about India, such as "lots of bits and pieces" on Carnatic music, for quality articles from Nithyasree Mahadevan to Zee Tamil Sa Re Ga Ma Pa 2009 Challenge, for encouraging comments and warning of unconstructive editing, for Signpost arbitration reports, "There is a distinction between moving on and forgetting about it", and for voicing the spiral of justice (pictured) - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Looking back through some of those things made me cringe but some of those things I'm rather pleasantly surprised with too. I suppose that's the reaction to be expected of a "veteran" editor though huh? ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I was pleasantly surprised by you seeing a person where others saw only saw admin abuse, and I looked a bit deeper, but naturally only a bit. "Veteran editor" is for me anybody who is here longer than I am, so I will never be one ;) - You deserve the image, part of my memories.

Thank you for reflecting the Gerechtigkeitsspirale!

Did you know ... that a church's 1510 spiral of justice declares: "Justice suffered in great need. Truth is slain dead. Faith has lost the battle"?

The poem ends with "Praise the right thing".

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1191 of Precious, a prize of QAI! - My friend, mentioned above, died in January. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

mistake in 2015 nepal earthquake

Oh that was my mistake thai I didnt provide ref..sorry Oikuchu (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice to see you again

This place needs you. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Request to reassess quality scale

Hi,

Seasons Greetings. This is a request to article Legal awareness, This article has complted three years since I started it on 24th May 2012 since then it has 257 edits and 42 distinct authors. If further supported the article may reach to GA level in future. As of now I want to include article on Law portal page. Undersigned requests to reassess the same on quality scale as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Assessment, If you approve it for B class we can include it in Law portal.

Thanks and regards.

Mahitgar (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks...

...For the link to the old clarification request. Yesterday I commented on AN that I remembered saying that closing an AE thread is an admin action, but could not find where I had said that and today you point to it. You've spared me from having to go through my old edits... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: Very welcome; I'm happy to have helped. I have to confess though that I dreaded that I'd have to go through old edits too. It was only as I typed the words "is open to resolving the concerns moving forward, or whether the admin wishes to behave as rigidly as other admins at AE have done previously", I remembered the case name and found the request there - much to my relief. =) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, Ncmvocalist. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#AE closes, timelines, and independent admin actions. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz (and Roger). I'm late to the party again so it may be moot, but if needed, please extend my collapse box to cover my bullets points concerning all four users rather than just two. That should address the word limit issue. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nithyasree Mahadevan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sun TV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Best of the Season to you

		Merry Christmas!
		Merry Christmas to you Ncmvocalist and a Happy and Prosperous New Year! Thank you for everything you do in this place. Cheers. :) Dr. K. 07:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sun Singer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Krish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

RM: St Mirren

Hi

Thanks for taking the time to carefully review and close Talk:St. Mirren F.C.#Requested_move_20_January_2016. I understand why you felt it appropriate to revert due to lack of tools.

However, I do have the tools, and as nominator I am very happy to take responsibility for implementing the close. So if you felt able to reinstate the close, I can do the rest.

If feel that's inappropriate, the no prob ... but the offer is there. Either way, thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

@BrownHairedGirl: I'm happy to reinstate the close if you can do the rest; have reinstated on that basis. Glad to have assisted. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll do it now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Done, in these edits. Thanks again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I must say it was very kind of you to pro-actively volunteer to take that responsibility, and spend the time doing that, especially as it saves requiring yet another person to do it when it is not critically necessary here. Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)