Ncmvocalist has retired from WP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ncmvocalist&diff=prev&oldid=261059444
Strange case here, I just wanted to see if anyone else had a background with the guy. I remember him from way back when I was actually editing over there, and found him to be quite the douche.
He's been in trouble before for prematurely archiving threads and generally acting like an admin, without ever being one. From there he got sideways with ARBCOM because he jumped in and started doing clerk work, even though he was told on several occasions not to do so.
Then a few days ago, he denied an unblock request and got in trouble for again pretending to be an admin. He apparently announced a while back he was going to make some kind of grand reveal on New Year's Eve, and has now said he's retiring.
Really weird case. It seems to be an example of an editor who was trying to usurp power and position, and how he got smacked down by the editors who already had it.
I thought he was a longstanding admin. Did he make any Requests for Adminship?
I don't think he ever made a RfA. I'm not saying archiving is an admin function, but he was jumping in and closing and archiving discussions that were still ongoing.
Here's the earlier thread about it.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=19509&hl=Ncmvocalist
It may be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but it's also the website that gives people delusions of grandeur. That's probably applicable to all sides of this one.
From about a month of seeing him going about, I thought Ncmvocalist was generally alright doing what he did. Did quite boring work competently. If a few people thought he was a clerk for a few whiles then so what, it's not exactly a powerful position, just the way to become an omega arbcom groupie or to advance hopes of being a future arb. I didn't agree that the warnings left to him were appropriate and I regard it as unfortunate that the arbs didn't publicly disapprove of them. I know slamming the clerks involved may be potentially hamstringing them and their future ability to do their jobs, but the sad thing there is that the ArbCom can't trust its clerks to use common sense and not be petty. These warnings concerned edits that weren't controversial. It was the very act of doing something that the clerks expected to be allowed to do on their own that invoked the censure and the warnings, not that any individual act was incompetent or otherwise bad. Not very respectable in my view.