Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iamunknown (talk | contribs) at 22:35, 30 April 2007 (→Block of Giano: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Naconkantari/talk header

Your recent blocks

I noticed you recently blocked quite a few users for various things such as linkspam, vandalism, etc. While all the edits leading to those blocks were problematic and probably made in bad faith, I think a lot of the blocks were premature. You seem to have blocked quite a few users after they had received only one warning, or in some cases no warnings, which violates the blocking policy. Could you explain this please? I'm all for blocking persistant vandals, but some of your blocks seem to bite the newcomers without giving them a chance. Pyrospirit 01:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before in my talk archives. I'm not going to sit around and wait for someone to vandalize just because I haven't gone through the "test sequence". Naconkantari 01:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand in that some cases, but what about your block just a few minutes ago of 70.153.132.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who you blocked for 3 hours after a single incident of vandalism on the page Hopla, which appeared to simply be a test edit? I don't doubt that you have good intentions, but this goes completely contrary to Misplaced Pages's consensus on blocks. To quote WP:BLOCK#Guide_to_blocking_times, "Blocks should generally not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism." I'd say that case deserved at most, a {{uw-vandalism3}}, and even that would be a bit heavy-handed. Really, a lot of your blocks seem to potentially cause more harm than good. How many editors you block might have become good editors, but were discouraged by a quick block for one editing test? Pyrospirit 01:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see and . My blocking method has been endorsed on ANI and I see no reason to alter my methods. Naconkantari 01:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I finished reading through those, and it seems that while WP:ANI didn't exactly denounce your blocks, there was still a lot of discontent regarding them. Your blocks are severely biting the newcomers in many cases, and it seems you never give users any warning whatsoever. They come to a Misplaced Pages page for the first time, notice the edit button, doodle "hi" on a page to see what happens, and get blocked for three hours. Sure, it may have prevented more vandalism, taking a few seconds to revert each incident, but what if they would have become a good editor? How do you "revert" the fact that good information could have been added but wasn't, because that editor left the site in disgust at the hostile reception? The purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to defeat enemy vandals who try to destroy our site; it is to build an encyclopedia, and preventing good information from entering our articles is much more damaging than some petty vandalism could ever be. As this has already been discussed, I won't take this any further, but I strongly advise you to think about what you're doing. Blocking isn't the only solution to vandalism. Pyrospirit 03:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

{{wikihermitalert}}

What's your opinion on this? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť 02:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the only thing I can say about that is "ugh". Naconkantari 02:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť 03:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that CVU is good in theory, but the practical application is not constructive for the encyclopedia. Yes, vandalism is bad and is increasing rapidly. Yes, having a group of editors devoted to removing vandalism is very helpful. But glorifying it by creating wikiprojects and "DEFCON levels" and other things are not what reverting vandalism is about and makes it worse. Vandals will "compete" to lower the DEFCON or get a page at LTA. I strongly endorse the WP:RBI method of countering vandalism as it is one of the most effective methods that I have found. In closing, I can understand where you are coming from, as I've been involved in CVU before, but in the long run, projects like those (from my point of view) do not benefit the encyclopedia. Naconkantari 03:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

user:sdpate

Thank you for your actions. -- Zanimum 17:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

TFA

I have reverted only twice, and that's only if you're counting the change I made to the caption as a revert, which was specifically made in response to a comment by ShadowHalo.--Pharos 03:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Do U know when my vandalism block for my account User:Next Fiday is goin to expire or it is just going to stay like that

The block will not expire. Naconkantari 21:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Armenia

It seems like Dmcdevit was successful at stopping Ararat arev, at least for a while, and Turkey has been at semiprotection for a bit now with no trouble. Would it be a problem if I reduced Armenia to semi as well? Seraphimblade 07:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not object to lowering it to semiprotection. Naconkantari 15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Naconkantari, thanks for participating in my successful RfA. You expressed concern about me not answer the questions; I've written some brief reflections, including an answer to Question 3, in case you're still worried: User:Ragesoss/RfA. --ragesoss 08:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Assistance needed - Re: Previously Failed RfA

Dear Naconkantari,

I would like to ask for your assistance. About 14 months ago, I self nominated for an RfA, which I ultimately withdrew (see here). During that RfA, you lodged an oppose vote, and I have taken a lot of the comments from that failed RfA on board since then. I am now up to an average of near on 875 to 900 edits per year, having only recently got back to the net from health issues (Throat cancer), and I am once again considering attempting a request for adminship. I am writing to all those editors who opposed my original self-nomination to ask them to see if they would be kind enough to review my recent work, and to see whether they consider that I have taken those points from my old RfA on board enough to warrant another attempt.

I am enjoying getting back into the swing of working on Misplaced Pages again, and looking forward to enjoying many more years of work. I am now using Twinkle and VandalFighter for my reversion work on RCP and CVU, and looking to the future.

Thank you for your time, and for your comments.

Thorsteinn A. Malmjursson User:Iceflow / Formerly User:Tmalmjursson 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Dalkey Archive Press

I would appreciate if you didn't edit that page anymore, seeing as how the information I put up about UIUC sophomore Jeff Brandt was true. He has made major revisions and edits to that website that deserve commendation on this wikipedia page.

130.126.67.198 19:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Chartreuse

Please see WP:NOR, WP:OWN, and WP:NPOV. Naconkantari 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Trolling anony AfD guy

• ...is back as Special:Contributions/172.162.65.72. :/ JuJube 06:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thank you, Nakon, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course. Thank you once more, · AndonicO

Block of Giano

What's the point of that? The page he was edit warring on (I trust you also blocked Doc Glasgow, btw?) has just been deleted. Please unblock. Bishonen | talk 22:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I have blocked all four of the editors warring on the page and am posting to WP:ANI as we speak. Naconkantari 22:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what diffs you have access to, and I'd like to see them, but Cyde was not edit warring. --Iamunknown 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have treated everyone equally and I fully understand your intentions, but I do not see this series of blocks as likely to reduce the drama level. Quite the contrary, alas. Newyorkbrad 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would make an addendum to that statement and say I agree with Newyorkbrad; your blocks of the parties were fair, but I am not sure how it will help (or what will help, for that matter); it wasn't a content dispute, a wheel war, it was a dispute as to who got the last punch at the Kelly RfC. --Iamunknown 22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)