User talk:UninvitedCompany/archive1

Nominations for Adminship

Hi. I nominated so many people for adminship because I wanted to make a lot of friends on Wikipedia. I don't think the nominations are inappropiate.

Also, I am planning to nominate User:Chrisn4255 (also known as User:128.12.53.90) for adminship. He has made approximately 1000 edits. Do you think this would be an "appropriate" nomination? --Lst 27 20:21, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find 1000 edits, he has shown no interest in administrative matters, has not participated in deletion or page protection debates, has been with the project for about two months, and has a blank user page. Do you believe you are making friends by nominating people who then get voted down? UninvitedCompany 20:38, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I miscalculated the number of edits the user has. He has made approxmimately 550 edits. So I will think about nominating him later, maybe in June or July. But I do think I am making friends by nominating (or trying to nominate) people for adminship.

He has been here for more than four months, not two. --Lst 27 20:49, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Whose user page did he blank? --Lst 27 20:56, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced page protection

Please don't protect the Caucasus/Georgia-related pages currently being attacked by an anon - this is the former user Levzur, who has a history of refusing to discuss, justify or compromise on his edits. The Arbitration Committee is due to review the situation - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ChrisO_and_Levzur for background. You're welcome to add your views to that page if you wish. -- ChrisO 22:00, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

They had been listed on Vandalism in progress, and since there I see no other editing taking place other than the revert war, protection seemed wise, and likely to deter Levzur. If you disagree you are certainly welcome to unprotect them. UninvitedCompany 22:03, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Levzur has been at this in one form or another since December. He is simply trying to make us give up and go away. Zviad Gamsakhurdia, for instance, has already been protected at least six times over the past few months and Levzur has resumed attacking it within hours or days at the most after protection is lifted. Protection will achieve nothing except blocking anyone from editing the articles, which is apparently his aim. We can't leave articles protected permanently, which is what would be necessary if we were solely reliant on protection; I'd suggest blocking his IP addresses instead. -- ChrisO 22:03, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

His IP is different each time, making this difficult. Perhaps those wishing to make further constructive edits could copy the page to a temporary location and work on it there. UninvitedCompany 22:08, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. Block the entire /24 - i.e. 213.157.202.0/24, 213.157.194.0/24. RickK blocked a third /24 last night, forcing him onto the other two that his ISP uses. And as a point of principle, I don't see why every other Wikipedian should be inconvenienced by a vandal's campaign. -- ChrisO 22:14, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact, I've now blocked both /24s for six hours, which should give him a reasonable cooling-off time (he always edits during a restricted time period). -- ChrisO 22:15, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. I don't know the history and you do, so I'll bow out. It seems to me that blocking three /24s isn't any better than protecting the pages. How many other users will be affected by such wide blocks? UninvitedCompany 22:17, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The only user I've ever seen from those /24s (owned by Rustavi 2 Online, a Georgian ISP) is Levzur, so I suspect that there probably aren't too many Georgian contributors to Wikipedia. A wide ban is occasionally necessary if a user goes on a vandalism rampage from multiple proxies on the same IP block. It's happened before, unfortunately. -- ChrisO 22:23, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly still have faith in the project and, in fact, feel it may very well prove a vitality much greater than many anticipate. But I'm reminded, just a bit, of Plato when I'm left wishing for an educated and benevolent dictator to which I could appeal for enforcement of an agreement. I like decentralized systems but, like the free rider problem, they usually evolve effective ways to deal with troublesome components.

Incidentally, semiotics isn't really a subset of psychiatry. :) I was just trying to give a clear synoptic view in whatever way Mr. Church was willing to oblige. And I never feel good about smart people doing dumb things, be it he, me, or anyone. - PilotPrecise 03:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up.

I didn't realize there was any kind of review process for new articles. I imagine my 20 working saves were a bit of an annoyance. Now that I know, I will use the preview button. Cheers! Erikp 16:15, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kat

-> User talk:GrahamN/Kat (by Martin)

Special characters

You can use Wikipedia:Special characters, but I just copied and pasted the diacritic from the title of the page in this case. Maximus Rex 22:55, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

We can talk here. What don't you understand?

I'm confused. Others have ascribed various motives for what you're doing, and I don't believe they're accurate. I'm not sure I know what you're trying to accomplish. As I think you know, I respect the work that you did here, and I don't know why you would do something that would, at least in some people's minds, detract from that. UninvitedCompany

Can't you read what I'm saying, on the Village pump or on User talk:Jimbo Wales? I demand that my user space is not vandalized.

I don't believe that your user space is being vandalized. Both your user page and your talk page are protected, and blank except for a one-line comment about your dates of participation, and Jimbo's note. And my note, which I placed there because I couldn't think of any other way to reach you, and which I have since removed. Am I missing something? UninvitedCompany

Yes, you're missing the subpages that Quagga has created at least 15 times (see the deletion log).

Ok. I see one of them, anyway. So, Quagga is being a pest. The pages, at this time, are all deleted, are they not? If not, tell me which ones are still there. I'll delete them. Is that all there is to this? UninvitedCompany 02:17, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I want to leave knowing my userspace remains intact. I can't be expected to stay here and check for the vandalism that Quagga recreates every day. Repeat vandals are to be kicked out. RickK just banned Neumannkun for doing a fraction of the amount of vandalism Quagga has committed. But if it's vandalism against Wik, the rules are obviously different.

Let me see if I've got this straight. There is no vandalism of your talk space at present, but you engaging in a persistent, high-volume campaign of vandalism to the Wikipedia because Quagga might vandalize something tomorrow? I don't get it. I think a number of people have already promised to watch your user space and delete any new pages. So what do you want, exactly? I'm still confused. UninvitedCompany 03:28, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

He "might"? He has done it about 15 times in a few days, I must assume he will. Or just how long do you suppose I should wait until he might appear to stop? And even then, how could I ever know he has finally stopped? He may make a pause and start again when I'm no longer watching. That's entirely unacceptable. What I want, exactly, is that he is permanently banned.

You were here long enoguh to realize that that isn't how things work. He creates pages, people delete them. I'll delete them myself. He'll tire of the game soon enough. If he carries it on long enough, he'll get banned. And what's the big deal? He creates some subpage with no content other than "Hi Wik," and you respond with this barrage of vandalism? If you were playing tit-for-tit, I'd understand, but you're creating a lot of extra work and upsetting many people. Besides, you yourself have demonstrated that bans aren't particularly effective. We ban him, he comes back in a month anyway, what have you gained? Wouldn't you be better off letting us do the watching for you, as we will, and leaving the details to us? (I'm calling it a night for now and won't be back until tomorrow, so please don't expect a rapid reply) UninvitedCompany

1) Sure this is how things work, vandals are banned all the time. It's an absurd idea that vandalism should be just reverted over and over again when you can simply cut off the source. 2) He is not tiring of that; sooner will you be tiring of reverting. If he carries it on long enough, he'll get banned? Excuse me? Just what exactly is "long enough"? Does he have to create the page a thousand times before you call him bannable? 3) The content of his pages is irrelevant (I'm not reading them). He has no business putting pages in my userspace, end of story. 4) I did try tit-for-tat, that didn't stop him. Without my "barrage" we wouldn't be talking now. Before I started this, I was shrugged off and nothing happened. 5) If he is banned and continues vandalizing using proxies in a way that you can't stop, I will not complain to you. But at least he must be prevented from doing this using his regular username. 6) I'm not calling for a one-month ban but a permanent one. 7) No, watching is not enough. Some time you'll miss such a page (watchlists don't help as he can choose whatever name, and as far as I know there is no "allpages" function for the user space to see all subpages) and then it will stand there for who knows how long. I don't have to accept that when it can be so easily prevented.

Oh please...Wik...when will you get that I wasn't trying to vandalize your "page"? I was just trying to get it so people could talk to you on your page. Secondly, you're beyond banned for 7 days. You've been posting again and again and it's only getting you into further trouble. --Quagga

Wik

Oh, come on RickK, there are many things that might be said about Wik that are true, but he isn't an idiot. Besides, no personal attacks, right? No, his actions aren't justified. I do not necessarily hope for his return. And all is not forgiven, at least not now. But, I'm still trying to talk with him and understand what in the world the problem is, as several others have encouraged me to do. I strive to treat everyone with respect, and hope you will at least treat Wik with respect for now. UninvitedCompany 02:44, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for Adminship

Misplaced page protection

Thanks for the heads up.

User:Kat

Special characters

Wik

Thank you for the offer