User talk:Naerii

Archives
March '08 April

Re: Advice needed

I'd say block as vandalism only account. The good contributions appear to be coming at different times to the "bad ones" - so maybe the account is shared? Either way, I'd block. Try asking another admin or go to irc and ask someone else. If you don't know how to connect to irc, see User:Rudget/irc. Rudget. 14:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedians and WP:AC

Hi. You just nominated WP:AC for deletion. I have speedily closed this as disruptive and absurd. You also moved WP:Wikipedians to WP:Mob rule. I have reverted this. Please stop being disruptive. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gavia Immer is right

[1] Frustration is fine, but taking such actions in the heat of the moment isn't the best way to make your point. Take your time and think carefully about what the alternatives are before suggesting that the committee be "deleted." It handles a lot of cases that are just too wearying or divisive for the community to take care of; what alternatives to you have to suggest for those kinds of cases? Risker (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Community decisions, but as in the eyes of supposedly respected admins the community is a lynch mob, we're clearly unfit to decide for ourselves. Pathetic. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Naerii, Doc Glasgow is not on the Arbcom, and he is one voice amongst many. That discussion has just begun, and will go on for some time now. More editors and admins who agree with your position are logging in and concurring with the community ban proposal. Please try taking a somewhat longer view here; instead of over-the-top reactions, pull together the best arguments on why the community ban is a good idea. Risker (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Concern

Just out of interest, what is your purpose here? You've been here just a few days and you seem completely dissatisfied and some would argue you are participating in disruptive editing with your nomination of ArbCom for MfD and moving Wikipedia:Wikipedians to mob rule. They were very pointy edits and I suggest you stay away from that sort of thing in the future. I'm going to be blunt - If you're this unhappy here already, Wikipedia might not be the place for you. Just out of interest, what's the name of your other account? You clearly aren't new here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to send this to AIV. Glad someone's noticed this. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:07, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

User seems to be making lots of XfD votes that "agree with the mob", probably to make the point that Wikipedia is under mob rule. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:10, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Have you even looked at my user page? -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I have. Fail to see the relevance. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:17, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to Ryan. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:19, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Ah right, thanks for that - I hadn't checked your userpage. Still, that only strengthens my opinion that you should re-evaluate how you want to contribute here, because you are clearly not happy with things. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that I'm here to write articles, but it's pretty hard to ignore when the people meant to be taking care of the encyclopedia completely fail to do so in a most spectacular manner. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it might be a very good idea for you to stay out of meta-discussion and stick to articles. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Free Advice

I noticed you have added the exact same comment to several AfDs. You should leave a custom summary for eack AfD. Otherwise, it seems as though you did not actually look at the article. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the reasons that Naerii gives in the AfDs are short, but are certainly policy based reasons which is better than most.... Ryan Postlethwaite 18:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I open tabs for the things that I think should be deleted as I go through the list of AfDs. I don't bother writing long explanations as most of the time it's self evident and I don't feel like repeating what has already been said. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your account's editing privileges have been revoked

It has become clear that your contributions to Wikipedia are not for the betterment of the project, and that your presence here is having a net negative effect on the community as a whole. Your recent filing of an MfD discussion on the Arbitration Committee, your disruptive communications with fellow editors, and a general "chip on your solider" attitude are conclusive proof of this.

Further to your disruptive contributions, I have blocked you indefinitely. AGK § 18:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Indef is a bit harsh don't you think? Seems like a temp cool-off period is all that's needed. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:29, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Really? Other than my past actions in the twenty minutes or so - which of my edits do you feel show my "chip on my shoulder" attitude? -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, which part of half a featured article, writing half a good article, uploading images I took and images from Flickr, helping other people improve articles, creating FAQs, creating articles, and spending hours reverting vandalism led you to believe that my contributions were disruptive? -- Naerii · plz create stuff

Whilst I believe some of his edits are clearly trolling, I don't believe an indef block should be made here - he's got an extensive history over a previous account that should be taken into account. I don't actually believe a block is in order at all here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Ryan. I would say a block of a few weeks could suffice. I only support this, however, if the editor removes "I WILL DEFINITELY VOTE FOR YOU IN RFA IF YOU DO THIS BORING CRAPPY JOB" from his/her userpage, as that is not appropriate (that's what led me to this talk page). нмŵוτнτ 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a joke. You can delete it if it really bothers you. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My issue with it is that new editors may see that, & they may think it's a game & that simply exchanging favors & voting is the way to adminship. нмŵוτнτ 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I too think this is block is excessive. This short spate of disruption was inappropriate, but she does have a long history of contributions to the project - a short block, if any, would have been the best solution. krimpet✽ 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the block should be lifted if this user agrees to stop being disruptive. I make this recommendation despite Naerii's opinion that much of my wiki-time is spent as a member of a useless waste of space. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Naerii, do you agree to stop being disruptive? All blocks are on a damage-limitation basis only, and if you agree to stop all disruptive behaviour, then I don't see why I would object to a lifting o the block. Do you have thoughts on the matter? AGK § 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is true. If the editor agrees to stop, then even a "few weeks" wouldn't be necessary. нмŵוτнτ 19:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not going to continue nominating the AC for deletion, etc. But I'm not going to agree to stop doing the behaviour AGK described either, particularly as I don't know why my "contributions to Wikipedia are not for the betterment of the project" and my "presence here is having a net negative effect on the community as a whole." -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there is a differentiation between "nominating the AC for deletion" and "the behaviour AGK described"—they are one and the same. I will assume that you are going to take steps to ensure that the disruption ceases? AGK § 19:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the way you phrased it it sounds as if it's a long term behaviour problem. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if you picked me up that way: rather, it was simply a reflection of the serious nature of your contribution's disruption level at the time of the block—that is, it was a matter of the gravity of the disruption (an MfD on the ArbCom is pretty disruptive), rather than as a matter of time span. Again, my question: will there any any further disruption? AGK § 19:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No. As I stated a few paras up: "Obviously I'm not going to continue nominating the AC for deletion, etc.". -- Naerii · plz create stuff 19:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the other admins who have already given their opinions, I just want to add that I support lifting the block. Addhoc (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)