Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: NVS

http://datascreamer.com

Posted by: LaraLove

For whatever reason, I read "Novocal's block". That made the link all the more disappointing.

Posted by: NVS

block?

Posted by: LaraLove

I'm going to be real, cause that's how I roll. Little sleep and having not yet eaten today, my brain is working at half speed. I just read the thread on ncmvocalist and his inability to grasp what others tell him, and I thought this thread was about him being blocked for it... so not only did I misread "blog" as "block", but I was thinking it was "ncmvocalist" instead of "Novocal".

Just ignore me. I had my hopes up for block drama and I got a blog post. That's no fun.

Posted by: thekohser

Worst Blog of 2008 nominee.

Posted by: NVS

You attitude in this post reflects that of crankiness. Have you no joy?

edit: Alter characterization.

Posted by: thekohser

Sorry, but when I looked at it, the sum total of the contents of your blog was:

Posted by: NVS

What browser are you using? This may indicate an issue. I'm using firefox, I see it fine.

Posted by: NVS

Fixed. There was a coding error. I found it and subverted a new version of the php on my production site. Thank you for finding the bug! The blog should work on your browser now.

Posted by: thekohser

Okay, good. Now you're up to the Second-worst Blog of 2008, after this ridiculous http://wikipediareview-com.blogspot.com/.

Posted by: Proabivouac

I'm a little hurt that you didn't credit me directly.

Since you indef blocked PrivateMusings for using socks in "discussions internal to the project", when your co-prosecutor JzG was doing the exact same thing?

Posted by: NVS

You want to discuss that? Take it to my talk page on project, or to the blog. I won't discuss it here. Incidentally, it is a little off topic for this thread. Respectfully.

Posted by: LaraLove

Part of your problem is that, despite having been an admin previously, you don't appear to understand what adminship is. Your RFA wasn't a turning point in anything. It was actually rather predictable.


Adminship was not a big deal when the project was small, but it certainly is now.


This makes no sense coming from someone who clearly knows Kmweber. The answer to this question is a simple one, and is easily found in the contributions of the aforementioned editor.

All that said, I find it amusing how many people take to analyzing RFA after theirs fails. RFA is broken, that is not in question by those grounded in reality, but not every failed RFA is evidence of it. A full blown analysis by a professional (volunteering his services, of course) is in progress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA_Review was initiated after RFA/DHMO 3. His RFA was clearly a turning point in the ongoing discussions about RFA. Not in that it failed, but in the shameful, pathetic behavior of some of those who participated in it and the affect it had. Individual analysis is pointless, particularly when it's your own RFA, because your opinion and perception are not neutral. If you want to participate in a genuine review, Gazimoff's page is the place to be.


I don't see how that's off-topic. You posted a link to your blog here. You blog is about your RFA. You're analyzing RFA as if it's broken, using yours as an example of all these new things. All you want, as you said, was the buttons to block, delete, protect, and un-all the previous. Adminship is about trust, and for the reasons noted by Proabivouac, there's a lack of trust regarding you and the block button. By your own blog, you also aren't trusted with the delete button and your judgment, which is important for adminship, is in question over your support of Durova and her block of !!. Clearly it seems relevant to the topic of this thread.

Posted by: NVS

I thought it was off topic in that we are renewing the NonvocalScream show thread here in this thread. I guess that is allowed here.

I'm analyzing the system as a whole. I can do that.

You are correct that I may not be the most neutral person to analyze my own, but I thought it was fair to at least try to do mine...

...before I analyze others individual RFAs, and the system in general. The focus will be more on the system in general and exposing those biases that exist.

I think it goes without saying that with all the facts known, I do not support the block of !!.

Additionally, I've spoken to PM (regarding the block of him) about this already after his arbcom block expired, like two adults would and should on this project. I consider the matter settled, and thus I won't comment on the PM block.

Posted by: Random832

Your qualifier "with all the facts known" is precisely the problem here - you should not have supported it without all the facts known, either.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

The only fact that was not known to you at the last time you supported it was !!'s prior identity (or at least that his prior identity was that of a person generally regarded to be nonproblematic). What this indicates to me is that you feel that whether or not someone should be blocked is, in part, based on who they are and who they know. This means that you feel that blocks are an appropriate tool for playing clique politics.

This is why you should not be an admin.

Posted by: Random832

Posting comments doesn't work (it says something about the DOM being messed up, and if I bypass that javascript check it says I "must be logged in")

Posted by: NVS

No, you are incorrect about this...

"This means that you feel that blocks are an appropriate tool for playing clique politics."

It means that I assumed Durova had viable information. I should never assume. I should have investigated. That is what it means.

Posted by: NVS

Fixed, for now. I have to debug the php later. Its sad if I have to use a bug tracker. :| Thank you for the report.

Posted by: Cla68

NVS, you appear to really enjoy, or else are very compelled, to participate in Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I suggest choosing a topic that's interesting to you and then taking an article about some aspect of that topic to Featured status.

The only real reward that may result from doing so is a feeling of satisfaction and pride for having created what would probably be one of the best, if not the best, article on that subject on the entire English Internet. But, I suspect that that feeling may be better than whatever you may be getting out of trying to participate in the project's administration. If you have already taken an article to FA with this or any of your previous WP accounts, my apologies for presuming that you haven't done so.

Posted by: NVS

There is more than just the En wiki project. However, thank you for the advice.

Posted by: Cla68

I should have said any language wiki.

Posted by: NVS

I think I would actually like to get more involved into fund raising and such when time permits.

Posted by: Giggy

I'm not sure me analysing RfA would be a good idea for anyone


Might I suggest you just use BlogSpot and let Google solve all your problems?

Posted by: LaraLove

Of all my actions on Wikipedia, I can't recall one admin action that really left me with a feeling of pride of satisfaction. There is much more joy in writing and article improvement, no doubt. Aspiring for adminship is a waste. And I think I now understand the editors who oppose what they believe is an admin mill... and I think I just came to agree with them.

Posted by: NVS

New post today.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Must you use Wikipedia Review to advertise your blog?

Posted by: NVS

I should have kept it within the scope of this thread, Wikipedia thru the eyes of bloggers. I'll do better next time to ensure that all blogs advertised and commented on are WMF related. So sorry if this one was...


...improper.

Posted by: thekohser

I am http://www.gregorykohs.com, http://insidemr.blogspot.com/, and http://wikipediareview-com.blogspot.com/ that someone would use this forum to self promote!

Posted by: NVS

Ms Martin.... hellooooooo. *echo* *echo* *echo* Of course, *I* only get my wrist slapped.

Posted by: NVS

A few new interesting posts, http://www.datascreamer.com

Posted by: NVS

And more more new one.

Posted by: Neil

Exactly one quarter of your posts to WR (16 of 64) have been on this one self-promotional thread, NVS.

I don't think Greg has promoted Wikipedia Review sixteen times out of his 3,351 posts, yet he's the patsy who gets castigated as a self-promoter.

Poor Greg.

Posted by: NVS

Let us look at it this way.

1) What money am I making from my visitors?

2) Is my blog in the most remote way commercially promotional?

3) Am I spewing *anything* other than opinion pieces about WMF and the projects?

(answer key: 1. $0.00 2. No 3. No.)

Ok... there you have it; the repeated posts are on topic for the thread. Why are you complaining?

Posted by: KStreetSlave

You might be better off adding your blog to the aggregator. Then new posts that are interesting will be picked up in the relevant blog sections on the site (not sure how those work.)

Posted by: Giggy

Let us look at it this way.

1) Are you providing anything useful to people who click the links in this thread because they expect something good?

2) Is your blog in any way assisting in WR's aims of a useful criticism of WP?

3) I couldn't think of a witty question three.

(answer key: 1. No. 2. No. 3. No.)

(Ha! You can't delete my comments on WR, like you did http://www.datascreamer.com/?p=68#comments!)

Posted by: NVS

Aw, don't be sore you got caught up in the spam filter.

Posted by: Casliber

NVS - flogging a dead horse about every new comment on your blog is not a good look - don't treat people like idiots. Not as seat-squirmingly embarrassing as the denial/non-denial you were Mercury, when asked directly by Giggy some time ago but close.

Cla68 has given good advice - I gave you the same advice (maybe more than once, I don't know), and I even used caps the last time (silly really, dramatic effects never works). If you ever want to be an admin, go and edit quietly for 9 months, help with appropriate BLP (not just http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Dice_Clay&diff=226237099&oldid=225069133 articles but constructive stuff). I dunno...umm..anyway. I won't repeat this message any more

Posted by: LaraLove

Heed your own advice.

Posted by: thekohser

Thanks, Neil. However, I would guess that I've promoted Wikipedia Review in some way in about 100 of my posts. If true, it's still less than 3%.

As for the money I'm making... I'm actually losing money each month. Server fees outstrip my ad revenues by about a 5-to-1 margin. So, you might say I'm providing a charitable service to users like Awbrey and Ockham and SirFozzie, that they might create permanent wiki pages at no cost to themselves, and even where (if they choose) they could earn ad revenue of their own or conduct business with customers.

As for commercial promotion and "spewing", I have no rebuttal. Wikipedia Review, admittedly, is pretty much a commercial sputum factory.

Greg

Posted by: NVS

Sure... if you don't want a heads up each time I post constructive criticism pieces, I won't post in this thread anymore. I mean, I thought that was what the fuck we were here for - constructive opinion pieces.

All the same. RSS it if your interested, or not. I won't tell you here when I've made another post. I will tell you that I've had alot of referrers from the thread, and they actually click thru the whole post - so they are *reading* the whole post. But I guess that is not important. Get a fucking life. Maybe I'll post some ads on the blog. Its not like I was in it for money. Cant make folks happy for all the complaining around. :<




I'm not trying to make admin, the project ain't a game like that - but I digress, this is off topic for the thread.




Can you point me how to do that?

Posted by: KStreetSlave

I don't remember the url, just google Planet Wikimedia.

Posted by: Casliber

Ummm....how does your last comment above go with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NonvocalScream/Review?

Posted by: LaraLove

I think you just broke your third rule of engagement.

Posted by: Eva Destruction

This blog is possibly one of the most boring things I've ever read, and I've read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VPP and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains. Why exactly do you think anyone here would be interested? And even someone does care, why don't you post it on Wikipedia itself since you never appear to talk about anything else?

Posted by: Milton Roe

Durova likes Cirt now, who actually passed his RfA. How much more butthurt could NVS be at this point?

The pathos.

But look, there are some drama-mongers who should just never, ever be given power. Otherwise, if they don't have power, it's easy to ignore them. Problem fixed.

Posted by: NVS

It does not. After reading the comments at /review - I changed my mind. I'm allowed to do that.


Not really. I don't represent Wikimedia in this place. That rule means I won't say anything intended to damage Wikimedia or it's local projects. nor will I give out any confidential information. Stop reading into things.

Additionally, I'm free to say what I want so long as the site owners are ok with it. If they are not, a mod will tell me and I will stop.



My vote on the cirt RFA, was about cirt, not Durova.

She does good work on the featured stuff and has done alot with images and commons lately. I'm proud of her contributions there. I won't comment on Durova further. Seriously, find something constructive to say.

edit: corrected spelling on "information".

Posted by: LaraLove

Let's strike up a deal. We'll find something constructive to say when you start saying something worth reading.

Posted by: The Joy

I'm not sure how WR's blog aggregator works, but I could add NVS's blog to the http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16302.

Would that satisfy everyone?

Note: I have done so.

Posted by: NVS

We? Mouse in your pocket?



Thank you. I won't post anymore updates to my blog in this thread. Anyone interested can RSS it.

Posted by: The Joy

Ah, very good.

As for your latest post on closing AFDs, I would think that administrators would prefer editors who know what they are doing to close AFDs, even non-admins. The purpose of XFD and even DRV is determining "consensus." Who cares who does it as long as they understand "consensus" and policy? In theory, administrators are just editors with extra tools. The only reason non-admins can't close a mixed/delete result XFD is because they can't delete if consensus goes that way. That's really not an excuse anymore what with bots alerting people and watchlists. An admin could do a sweep of AFDs and delete those with delete results. There is a process for contesting deletions, so what's the big deal if a non-admin, admin, or even b'crat who closes an XFD as deleted turns out to be wrong?

Posted by: Giggy

If I recall, Derktar added my blog to the WR blog's "blogroll".

Posted by: Eva Destruction

NVS must have misread that as "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog_Roll", as it's now been wiped. (I'll get my coat...)

Posted by: EricBarbour

Oddly enough, NVS's blog link now goes to a website http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/datascreamer.com that
has something to do with cosmetic surgery. In fact, it closely resembles one of those
mesothelioma-lawyer trolling sites.

Wonder if they stole the domain from NVS......

Posted by: tarantino

It looks like he decided he wanted to use http://www.google.com/search?q=site:nonvocalscream.com&hl=en&lr=&num=100&filter=0 instead.