User talk:Rspeer/Archive 7

Talk page archives

Part I (July 2004 – July 2005)

In which I get a really heart-warming reply from a newbie I helped, manage to not mess up too many things in my first year editing Wikipedia, and end up in a content dispute

Part II (August – November 2005)

In which I resolve a content dispute, appear in the Wiktionary definition of "loser-fucker", and incidentally realize how deeply AfD sucks

Part III (November 2005 – February 2006)

In which a conflict is narrowly averted, much confusion arises from the letters "XD", and I get an article featured, but Henry Ford wrecks the party

Part IV (February -- August 2006)

In which I am given the ceremonial mop, and nothing interesting ensues except for the personal threats

Intermission

Part V (December 2006 -- February 2007)

One day we will all look back at this and laugh.

Part VI (March -- July 2007)

In which being an admin is no big deal, and I finally earn a barnstar

Part VII (August 2007 -- May 2008)

Bitey the Bear says: Only you can prevent unnecessary username blocks.

Current talk page

Username VIolations

If the user name is claerly a violation such as shitonme or something of the sort. IT is general practice to go ahead and soft block the account and watch for an unblock request. Usually if there are no edits it is best for them to create a new account and not encourage them to go through the hassle of a name change when there is nothing to carry over. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This "general practice" is frowned on by editors at the Village Pump and is not supported by the username policy. I will not block newbies for violating a rule they have never seen. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

While it may be frowned upon, the policy as I read it, WP:USERNAME states, "Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are confusing, misleading, disruptive, promotional or offensive. In borderline cases, you will be asked to choose a new username; in egregious cases, your account will simply be indefinitely blocked." Wiktionary defines egregious as meaning "Exceptional, conspicuous, outstanding, most usually in a negative fashion." or "Outrageously bad.". WHile it may be frowned upon, current policy permits and encourages the indef blocking of outrageously bad usernames. Hence WP:UAA. It is my belief that names such as shitonme88 count as an egregious. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Shitonme" is not outrageously bad unless you are very easily outraged. WP:UAA is not Wikipedia's roving censor squad. The rule was clearly meant to expedite blocking names that were created in bad faith (as described elsewhere on the page), not every single name that violates one of the WP:U rules that newbies have never seen. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I ask myself, would the average individual have a problem with the username? If I were asked to address somebody by that name, would the average human being find it difficult to say the name? Would it be embarrassing? It has nothing to do with being easily outraged, it has to do with my interpretation of how an average individual would react. I am fairly strict in my interpretation of the username policy. I let alot slide however there is a point where it may not be in bad faith but has the potential to be uncomfortable enough that they should just get a new name. (and by all means I am not a prude, I have a very open mind in many areas). Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You are listing all the reasons that I warned the user to change their username. Why do you insist on blocking newbies for a first offense against a minor policy, a punishment which is far out of proportion to everything else on Wikipedia? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As a further not, WP:U states that "Offensive usernames that may make harmonious editing difficult or impossible, including but not limited to:" ... "Usernames that include slurs, or references to reproductive or excretory bodily functions." Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice that the text you're quoting is not followed by "block them now! hurry!!!" A warning remains the appropriate response. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You will however read, "Clearly inappropriate usernames should be reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, and can be blocked on sight by any administrator." Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Dont get me wrong, I am all for WP:AGF, and take alot of crap for it at times. I respect your stance, and am atually willing to take some of your advice in give in some areas. There are others I feel that should, as the policy says, "be blocked on site" I think the exceptionally long and or confusing names overly blocked and should be given time. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've taken crap consistently through my Wikipedia career for defending newbies, but I keep doing it, because newbies are the future of Wikipedia. If you assume good faith and look at what this newbie did before being blocked, you'll notice that they weren't a vandal. They were confused, naive, and self-promoting, but that's not a capital offense last I checked, and many good Wikipedians have started out that way.

But you're arguing that this non-vandal should be indefinitely blocked, because you can declare his username to be "clearly inappropriate". I've already argued that it's not; it's just a run-of-the-mill username violation. What do you gain by trumping this up into a block? Because Wikipedia loses a potential contributor. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Were you here when I refused to block a username with the word pimp in it? We almost lost a long time contributor for it. We need to weigh both sides of the pictures. I think the question to ask is, would it be disruptive or uncomfterable if i said this name in casual conversation. While not a hard and fast rule, i believe it is important to weight both the interests of the current contributors with the interests of new contributors. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort. No, I was not here. I have only recently arrived at WP:UAA, when I saw the outcry against it on the Village Pump and decided to try to work towards a solution. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

←I am all for working towards a solution. I think there are some problems, but I believe that the spirit of the username policy is to prevent extremely uncomfterable usernames. I agree it has gotten out of hand with maximum lengths or the "overly confusing" usernames. I have worked on UAA and RFCN for quite a while now. I think an important thing to iron out is what is the consensus of the spirit of the username policy. It is not about the bureaucracy and the official places to report stuff, the question is, why is WP:U here? Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It's just that the thing I'm working on right now, because it seems easiest to fix, is that the current bureaucracy strongly encourages people to block as a first resort, even though I'm pretty sure that wasn't the point of the username policy, and this has led to Wikipedia losing contributors. There are ways to prevent things besides blocking -- just look at the RC patrollers, who generally block only on a fourth offense. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So, the question becomes, why do we block inappropriate usernames at all? I believe the opposite (however respect your opinion). I believe the bureaucracy will try to force us to go through a series of hurdles before we prevent the username from being used. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot putting name back

The name that featured age and being from Portugal, that you said had been put back? If you look closely, it was actually two very similar but definitely different names, which in fact points to abuse, or that the first one got blocked anyway so they tried to create another. SamBC(talk) 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither account has edited anything, so there isn't any abuse to see at this point. My good-faith assumption is that the user forgot their original long username and created another. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

In fact, you should feel free to encourage me to only "use account creation blocks in the most serious cases." I already do. If you think bad faith wasn't intended with Goddamn phucking Clintons! (talk · contribs) then I'm afraid all I can do is say you would appear to be assuming good faith where none should be extended.

In addition, your claim that "nothing in the username policy says a hard block was appropriate in this case" is false. I quote from the username policy: "Clearly inappropriate usernames should ... be blocked on sight by any administrator. In these cases it is frequently useful to disable account creation, if the username appears to have been created in bad faith." Picaroon (t) 03:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not defending the name "Goddamn phucking Clintons!", but I'd like to give a comparison. Those who block for vandalism extend more good faith than is likely to be necessary all the time. They give up to four warnings before they block, and then the block isn't indefinite. Most of those people tend to keep on vandalizing, but not all of them. I'd say that most areas of Wikipedia have found that it's better to give second chances. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good change

I like the change in the wording you made to the bot note. Sorry if I got a bit cross before, I think we may have been talking cross purposes. I will re-read the conversation in the morning with a fresh mind. Until(1 == 2) 04:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we've found some common ground, and found the places where we disagree, and they're within the leeway allowed by WP:U. I'm going to let things run their course for a bit, and see if the new wording helps anything. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Penske

I was under the impression that an indefinite block is standard practice for any unacceptable username. I will, however, enable account creation. Daniel Case 18:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, only blatantly inappropriate usernames -- read the policy. And blocking account creation is reserved for cases of obvious bad faith. With the potential for users to be blocked so soon after they arrive at Wikipedia, you want them to have the chance to try again under an acceptable username. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

180 (number)

I don't think what I added to this page was appropriate at all, I knew someone would remove it, I only added it for the benefit of somebody else. Don't worry, I won't post it again, am I forgiven ? 81.145.240.54 15:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I'm trying to figure out what's so great about having someone screw with Wikipedia for your benefit. Anyway, you're forgiven. I wish you well if you decide to edit more productively in the future. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:

I blocked because the name implies that the sole purpose of the account is to operate for the Steven Springs Foundation, going against WP:COI. I'm sorry if my prose isn't really coherent; I'm not that great at coherent writing. (btw, Ryan Postlethwaite left the same response on my talk) —« ANIMUM » 22:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Implication of what someone might do isn't a reason to block, and neither is Ryan Postlethwaite's ridiculous interpretation of WP:U. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The name itself is promotional, it is a certainty that any edit would bare that name, blocking prevents promotion. It is well within policy to block clear violations on sight. Until(1 == 2) 22:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Within one interpretation of policy, which I've been telling you seems harmful. You told me to discuss overzealous blocks on the talk page of the admin doing the blocking, and if you and Ryan are going to follow me to every such page and continue the argument there, this won't do anything but create a big snowballing mess. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I did say to discuss bad blocks with admins, but part of discussing is people explaining their interpretation of events. I am not following you, I am watching your talk page. I am seeing people post about your messages to them. Until(1 == 2) 23:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I would add that the policy says that company/organisation names are considered promotional, not likely to be promotional (as is the case for domain names). SamBC(talk) 22:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that they shouldn't have that username, which is what {{UsernameConcern}} is for. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

hmmm

Hey buddy. I may be over-thinking or just seeing something that's not there, but you and I have seem to come across each other in a head-butting sort of way the last week or so. I do not wish to come across in a bad way with anyone, and am hoping for a fresh start. So I thought I'd swing by and start anew, and say hello. I think we have looked at a couple things differently, and just want to make sure there are no issues beyond that. Hope all's well, and, as always, happy editing! Jmlk17 05:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppet policy, add proxypuppet?

Hey there, RSpeer. Since you seem to have been the firm pen that initiated the last rewrite of the meatpuppet policy, your input would be most welcome on this which is out for consensus consideration. If you would like to comment or critique, please do so there. -- Lisasmall | Talk 21:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi rspeer - I have answered that question of yours. I have answered, in a nutshell, but saying that, in heinsight, a request for comment at RFCN would have been better, where the community could have discussed the username. This course of action would, of course, involve first placing {{usernameconcern}} on their talk page, and waiting for a response, as the user may have been very willing to change their username, or usurp another. I hope this answers the question adequately. I thank you once again for asking it. Cordially, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate usernames

Hi Rspeer, over at WP:UAA I saw that you had removed User:Peehahalol and User:1hitk1ller as not warranting username blocks. I think the first user qualifies under policy 5, subcategory 'Usernames that include slurs, or references to reproductive or excretory bodily functions', and the second under policy 5, 'Usernames that refer to real-world violent actions'. Any chance you might reconsider? Thanks! All the best, Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, with reference to your message on my talk page, I checked WP:U again, and on criterion 5 it mentions "Usernames that include slurs, or references to reproductive or excretory bodily functions". So, that was why I considered it offensive. Cheers.--Alasdair 07:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes... the way I understand it, the word "reference" implies you could refer to excretory functions in a purely clinical manner, and it would still be an inappropriate username, even if not a curse word. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

and... I created a discussion on the talk page of UAA here if you'd like to weigh in, since there seems to be disagreement on this issue. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bandidopervert

Okay then. I should have warned him for his libelous actions on the talk of Talk:Edward Winterhalder. I deleted it instead of blanking it to prevent wasting server space. bibliomaniac15 Tea anyone? 22:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I thought I had looked for deleted contributions, but I suppose I didn't. Thanks for the reply. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

		Thanks...
	Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA. Even though you didn't support my candidacy, I did greatly appreciate your comments, which I will certainly put to good use in improving myself as an editor. I do plan to make another request in a few months, once I have improved upon your concerns. Thank you again, and happy editing! Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA edit count comment

You recently wrote in an RFA:

The 6700 edits you demand is more than most current admins have ever made.

Do you know that this is true? Are you aware of some way to find out (easily) what the average number of edits editors had when they became admins, or how that changed over time? It would be great to see some statistics about this as it would give some clarity to the edit-count issue that many voters hinge their approval on. Rigadoun (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't know that it's true. I conclude it based on a rough model: admins have been promoted at a relatively constant rate over time, while editcountitis has been growing exponentially*, so most admins needed to meet a much lower edit count standard when they were promoted. If this is not the case, the alternatives are either that admin candidates in the past made many more edits than the community thought necessary to be promoted -- which I doubt, because candidates have always complained about editcountitis -- or that admins have drastically increased their editing rates after being promoted, and I don't see a reason why that would happen.

I have been thinking of making a graph of edit counts of admins over time, though -- I just have to have the time to write a bot that will collect the statistics. Thanks for asking -- I'm glad to know that someone else is interested in quantifying this issue.

* Until I run the bot and make the graph, this too is just a guess based on limited data. In my time on Wikipedia I have seen it take roughly equal amounts of time for the consensus "minimum edit count" to grow from 2000 to 4000 as it took to grow from 1000 to 2000, and comments from longer-term users say that 500 to 1000 happened about the same way. And this is why I contest demands for, say, 6700 edits -- if nothing changes in the culture of RfA, demands for 8000 edits will be commonplace within a year.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

'Pee' and such in usernames

Hi Rspeer, since we had an ongoing discussion on this matter on the talkpage about the 'offensive' category, I would appreciate you not templating me on this matter, seeing as I'm an established user. Thank you. ~Eliz81^(C) 07:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The {{uw-uaa}} template is meant for regulars. Newbies don't use UAA. I have been told by pro-blocking users that the only thing I can do to prevent UAA creep is to warn everyone I think is misusing it, and this takes a lot of time, but at least the template makes it easier.

Your report was exactly the reason the {{uw-uaa}} warning exists: you are acknowledging here that you knew it would be controversial, but you posted it on UAA instead of RFCN anyway. The good-faith assumption is that you were unaware of the purpose of RFCN, so I followed the simple directions for informing you of it. Sorry if you don't like the template; maybe you should start a discussion about whether that instruction should change. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, User:Pee pee ramone, User:Uknowpee, User:I need to pee REAL BAD!, and User:Mypeepee (albeit the last one with vandalism too) were blocked for offensive usernames. I'm presuming you disagree with these blocks? If you do disagree, should anything be done about these blocks now? I'm more trying to understand than anything. If other admins interpret 'pee' as blocking on sight, this matter is quite confusing to good faith contributors to UAA. ~Eliz81^(C) 08:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that UAA has been seriously misused in the past, but it's too late to do anything about previous misuses. The appropriate thing to do now is to use RFCN for its intended purpose, so that we can come to a consensus decision. That's far better than posting it on UAA and hoping the first admin who shows up agrees with you. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I understand exactly where you're coming from, and I understand your point. I brought it up on the UAA talk page was to try to establish what exactly was going on with this offensive category. I encourage you to discuss the issue with admins who make borderline blocks, since they set a confusing precedent for the rest of us. Consistency and consensus is much better for everyone involved, and appropriate reports will be much easier to make, since we're all just trying to make the encyclopedia better. I assure you that I have never made a contribution to UAA lightly, but the ensuing discussion has inspired me to start weighing my options more for RFCU and templating talkpages, and thank you for that. That being said, I think you and I should receive some special Wiki award for the longest ever discussion referring to urine. Although sadly, there may be a thread that's worse. ~Eliz81^(C) 08:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) OK, in the spirit of trying to be more careful about excretory functions per the WT:UAA discussion which included 'Snakepoop', I reported User:Pooopy at WP:RFCN, where I was promptly told it belonged at WP:UAA. This is getting incredibly frustrating, since I'm trying my best to be as conscientious as possible. ~Eliz81^(C) 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That's terrible -- you shouldn't be criticized for using RFCN. I fail to understand what's the big hurry among the RFCN and UAA crowd. Wikipedia will not collapse if a few people get to make a few edits using a slightly unsavory username. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A gift

For your kindness and good humor, I present you with this shrub. It will require trimming about once a month. The pool filter behind the fence is not included. Thank you. shoeofdeath 20:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

special characters

I've been notified that the special characters in my new sig would make illegible on many computers/settings. Since you also have special chars in your sig, I thought I'd ask you what you know about related potential display problems. — [ ˈaldǝˌbɛːɐ ] 18:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. PMAnderson suggested checking via IE, where all of the special characters in my sig were displayed as boxes. In your sig, only the upside down r is displayed incorrectly. — [ aldebaer ] 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is why I keep my username in plain text (with the "decorated" version being my talk page link). Indeed, your sig doesn't show up correctly for me on many systems. Definitely not on Windows (which doesn't come with IPA support), and not even on a Mac on Firefox (the accent characters show up as question marks) -- it only works on my Ubuntu Linux system. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for checking. On my system, it works perfectly fine with WindowsXP/Firefox, doesn't work with XP/IE. I changed it back as you can see. Still weird that IPA characters are not widely supported. — [ aldebaer ] 21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar RfA

Click there to open your card! → → →

Rspeer,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 55 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to vote in my nomination. I'm a new admin, so if you have any suggestions feel free to let me know. I would like to give a special shout out to Fang Aili, Phaedriel, and Anonymous Dissident, for their co-nominations. Thank you all!

Dreadstar

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's modification of Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

I will do my very best to live up to the trust that has been placed in me, and I hope to earn yours one day as well. Dreadstar † 09:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I passed my RfA, and couldn't have done it without your trust and support. Thank you very much. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Inflation

Note that I left a note here that I actually wanted to place on your talk page. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Edokter RfA

Dear Rspeer, Thank you for your participation in my Request for Adminship, which ended succesfully with 26 supports, 3 opposes and 1 neutral. A special thanks goes to Rlevse for nominating me. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA. Please do not hesitate to point out any errors I will make (unintentionally of course), so I won't make them again. Please contact me if you need anything done, that's what I'm here for! — Edokter • Talk • 13:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

answer for you!

See m:Talk:Right to vanish.

Broadly speaking, the point is that vanishing means, a member of the porject has reviewed, and approved the request, and set any terms needed. For a person with a poor track record those would include for example, that the request seems in good faith, and knowledge of their new account ID. A bad actor will ask to depart, then secretly return, not ask for help.

The typical scenario would be someone with blocks for 3RR, vandalism, incivility, attack, or who has been caught up in drama and is seen so negatively that anything they do will be slammed, even if reasonable. They want a clean start, but they don't want their new account to be slammed again as a sock, if the change is later discovered. So they want our help to do it without problems, so they can have a genuine clean start, and we review the request, and believe it's genuine and there is no evidence its a "game", and set any terms we feel necessary.

That is the typical "RtV" scenario for that option, which I had in mind... comments welcome? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:UAA

I don't dispute that the explanation for the report wasn't explicit enough, and for that I happily apologise. I do still stand by the view that the username breached policy and that reporting was an appropriate action, though. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 22:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate User Activity

You have correctly blocked Bernardlinton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for promoting his organization in Scottish Knights Templar. Paulmagoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been doing the same e.g. inserting a press release for his organization(reverted). --Dikkat 13:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Usernames with "porn"

Usernames that offensively include slurs, or references to reproductive or excretory bodily functions. is section 5 of WP:U. Many names with porn in them are blocked, I was not to be aware that they were names from another country, and when that was realised and pointed out to me the names were unblocked as I recall. Hope that answers your question. SGGH ^speak! 20:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Offensively. That's the word that makes the difference between the username policy and pointless censorship.

Whether you read something as a German guy's name or just a nonsense word ending in "porn", neither of them is so blatantly offensive that it makes sense to block. And when an erroneously blocked newbie is unblocked, the damage is done. Essentially, my suggestion is that you should be more careful and not worry so much about some hypothetical person who's slightly offended. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

My name

As a side note, my handle is Jéské Couriano. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 05:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I should have checked. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

SkiersBot

I got a message from Skier; I think it migth be safe to unblock SkiersBot now. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:User with long foreign name

Because the name appears a random string of letters. I could be mistaken, though, since I have no clue the name is in another language. Do you know what the language that is, and its meaning? Regards, PeaceNT 06:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's too linguistically consistent to be "random". I don't know what language it is, but our combined ignorance should not result in the blocking of a new user. Stop and think: is the existence of this username actually harming Wikipedia? If not, why block without first discussing with the user? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The name looks apparently random to me, which is a criterion for block in WP:USERNAME. Also, the block does not prevent discussions, a template was already placed on their talk page - where they can still edit - so the editor in question can still discuss their username or request a rename. The account has made no previous edits, so a block would not be a problem, they could naturally create a new account. I'm not sure what is you opinion about this case. Do you think the name is not random, or that it is random, but does not justify a block? Regards, PeaceNT 07:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not random -- it's linguistically coherent -- and anyway, since it's not blatantly inappropriate, there was no reason to block without communicating with the user first. The {{uw-username}} warning template exists for cases like this. New users also do not often "bounce back" from blocks, no matter how often username-blocking admins claim that they do. Being blocked is a hostile and unpleasant situation.

Now, with this particular username, it doesn't matter that much -- they were vandalizing before they got blocked -- but the block should have been for vandalism, not an indefinite username block, maintaining the harmful precedent that any user can be indefinitely blocked when one admin doesn't like their name. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ragarding the legitimacy of this username, it looks like our common sense conflicted. My opinion about the name stands, it is both long and random, thus warrant a block. Usernames which are either random or long could be acceptable, but this one is both.

I didn't find any vandalism made by this account, (they don't appear to have any contributions, do they?). That is to say their conduct (and whether or not I like this username) has no bearing whatsoever on the block. Regards, PeaceNT 08:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, and I've just noticed you unblocked User:Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka without first consulting me about your intention of reversing my action. Could you please explain the unblock? Regards, PeaceNT 08:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That was a completely out of order unblock. A questionable username, and vandalism leads to a hard username block. This is a clear violation of the username policy and I encourage you to reblock indefinately immediately. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, where is the vandalism from the account that you have blocked it for? It has no edits. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have no idea what the heck I was looking at -- probably another user on UAA. I'm very sorry about the reblock. This makes me conclude, though, that the user should have never been blocked at all.

I quickly reblocked because I thought I had just unblocked a vandal. With that not being the case, I feel the original unblock was completely valid. The stated block reason ("random sequence of characters"), after all, was most likely erroneous (those characters seem far from random). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So it seems we have to agree to disagree here. It is my view that this username is long and confusingly random, which is why the account should remain blocked unless the editor agrees to have his or her name changed. Discussion before block is not meant to deal with patent cases of violation. That there might be some kind of supposedly linguistic pattern doesn't make this string of letters less random to the average user (such as myself). I am not happy that you unblocked the user and would appreciate it if you would please use RFCN to have a consensus on this username. Regards, PeaceNT 06:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This username is clearly against policy. I know you are trying to change WP:U, which is cool so long as you do it by consensus, but the minute you start using your administrator tools to do that (i.e. by unblocking a user becuase you don't the policy) then that is way out of line. I ask you again to re-block the user, there isn't even a need for RFCN in this case. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is every possibility that this name is based on a real name. To randomly mix some names (from related ethnicities) that I have known in real life, would people block "amritpalsagoo" or "tajindertamala"? They are shorter, but I can't remember the longer ones I've known clearly. It being "random-looking" to a "typical" editor being a reason to block would seem to be an instance of systemic bias. This is a difficult situation to resolve reasonably, but editors (including administrators) should not assume that something pronouncable is random out-of-hand, IMO. SamBC(talk) 11:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on AN/I about this, so feel free to comment there. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the discussion is showing the name was a real name, and was far from an "obvious violation". "Random" was being used as a code word for "non-English", and blocking based on the language of the username has been disallowed throughout Wikimedia. I stand by my unblock. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Is a virtue. Turtlescrubber 05:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think so, too, but you'll have to elaborate. Do you consider it uncivil that I removed your report from UAA? UAA is a very transient place, and the accepted thing to do with reports that don't really belong there is to simply remove them and leave a reason in the edit summary.

For reference, if you encounter a username you consider questionable, or a non-blatant violation of policy, you should start by leaving the {{uw-username}} warning on the user's talk page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: User:Above da rest and User:Kickass1337

User:Above da rest, the deletion log for his main page means he was blocked for being a promotional account. As for kickass, I felt that it violated the offensive and violent sections of WP:U and would have led to disruptive editing had it not been blocked, even though the account had been used for disruption up until the block. Blocks can always be appealed in both cases though. Hope that helps illustrate what I was thinking. SGGH ^speak! 07:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In terms of "yer momma", I understand that some areas of the world would not see that as an offensive term, but wherever I have travelled in my part of the world, saying "your mum" or any variation thereof is offensive. So I hope you understand where I was coming from in that respect. Chuleeporn was unblocked when it was explained to me that porn can be a suffix in some names in non-english languages (the same is the case with 'shit') both points were made on the UAA talk page and now I have adjusted my username actions appropriately (see here for example). I guess I am stricter than others on the usernames, because a lot of the usernames I deal with are just vandals and are obviously so. I avoid dealing abruptly with almost all non-obvious violations now (both that you cited were over a month or nearly so ago) and in the case of the gggggggggg user I would have possibly userconcerned him but I would never have outright blocked him. I have userconcerned on numerous occasions and RFCN'd a large number of names. I am perhaps stricter with more obvious violations, violations which appear obvious to me, and yes once or twice I will make a decision that other people will disagree with, but with respect to your opinion I don't think I'm quite the newbie biter you seem to think I am. I am perfectly willing to take pointers on my admining, however, and if you think I am too strict on usernames then I will see what I can do to loosen up slightly :) SGGH ^speak! 09:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudget RfA

Dearest Opposer,

Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed unsuccessfully with 39 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. I would have liked to gain some experience of being an admin, but it wasn't to be. At least I gained some valuable time there and will use my knowledge picked up to my next candidacy. I would like to say once again, thank you for voting and I hope to see you at my next request be it a nomination or self-induced, I hope I don't get as many questions! Rudget _{Contributions} 09:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a second Carlos admin

Click there to open your card! → → →

My dear Wikipedian Rspeer,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 29 supports, 1 opposed, and 3 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. Special thanks to Carlossuarez46 for encourage me and nomination. Thank you and good day.

Carlosguitar

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor, who in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunately this is not entirely my own design.

This end the usual RFA thanks spam. You may return to your regular editing now.

Successful RfA - Thank you!

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate the support! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Usernames

Thanks for your input at WT:U#Blatantly inappropriete usernames. I now realize that the best way to deal with those who haven't edited for months is to ignore them. Please accept my apologies for the unhelpful reports.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 03:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:UAA

Please don't remove valid reports from WP:UAA unless you intend to deal with the reported users yourself. From reading your user page it's apparent that you have a particular opinion about how to deal with inappropriate user names, however, it is not widely shared among other admins, and certainly does not represent a consensus. When you remove valid reports of users who are almost certain to be blocked, as you did here, it basically defeats the purpose of WP:UAA, its helper bot, and the efforts of the admins who watch the page. It's certainly valid to remove reports of names that are not violations, or questionable, but that was clearly not the case here. Thanks, --MCB 06:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed them because they were following TWINKLE's idea of the username policy, not Wikipedia's. Others have mentioned that they do the same when people make UAA reports that ignore the following prominent, bold text on WP:U: Usernames should not be considered inappropriate unless one of the 5 general reasons applies. These reports also disregarded the instruction on the top of UAA to provide a reason why the username needs to be blocked (not just why it's a violation). Do we really want people to keep going around using TWINKLE as a substitute for reading directions?

I don't see how the actual username policy justifies blocking ABNPY6062464163 just for the username. Disregarding the user's edits for the moment, that would have merited at most a warning, and more reasonably a "don't worry about it and get on with life". Now, I'm okay with the fact that you blocked the user, but the block reason should have been for vandalism, not for a minor violation of the username policy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think your position is very much in the minority regarding inappropriate names. It seems very clear to me that "ABNPY6062464163" is a user name that "consist[s] of a confusingly random or lengthy sequence of characters", and I think that if you poll the admins that watch WP:UAA, you'd get a very strong consensus in agreement. People find long, arbitrary, and confusing strings annoying as user names; hence the policy. If this user wants to contribute, he/she is welcome to do so... under a different user name.

The fact that the report was generated by Twinkle boilerplate does not make the name any less of a policy violation. If you think Twinkle is not accurately reflecting policy (and I don't believe that's the case at all), that is best dealt with on the talk page for the Twinkle project or in communication with its developer, not by going around and trying to undo reports that are both correct and made in good faith. Thanks, --MCB 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm dismayed by this misinterpretation of the username policy. Response on your talk page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Reconsider stance on sockpuppetry?

Abusive sockpuppetry is still abusive, even when undertaken under the guise of avoiding harassment. If SA had merely switched accounts at some point and gone on to edit quietly, nobody would care. Taking up old disputes with the new account is borderline. But participating on an AFD with both accounts? That's not something that can be justified, in my view, regardless of what motivated the creation of the alternate account. Kirill 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Kemeny-Young method

Dear Rob, please moderate in a conflict between Richard Fobes and me. This conflict is about whether Fobes should be listed as an independent inventor of the Kemeny-Young method. Fobes insists that he should be listed. However, in my opinion, he should not be listed. The reasons: (1) Fobes claims that he invented this method in 1991. However, the Kemeny-Young method was already well known in 1991 so that it is rather improbable that Fobes invented this method independently. (2) There is no reliable source that mentions Fobes as an independent inventor of this method. (3) Fobes didn't publish any peer-reviewed paper. (4) Fobes didn't find anything new about this method. Markus Schulze 21:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Different Languages

I see. Thank you so much for the explanation. I will go ahead and register a new user name through the Chinese Wikipedia then. :) Arctura 02:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As a newbie, I thank you.

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for going to my talk page and giving me the answer to my question when you didn't have to. And as a newbie who was bitten on his first day (but quickly learned from the experience}, I thank you for helping all the new Wikipedians.

Arctura 02:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

VoteFair

And yet VoteFair claims that you approve of his edits and that you will re-add content for him, and you haven't been refuting this idea. What's the deal?

I'm trying to promote civility. If you'll look at the K-Y article history, you'll see that I've worked since almost the beginning of the article to curb the excesses in his writing, often reverting his changes wholesale. But even though he has a particular agenda (promoting his books and 'his' system), he can still improve the article. First of all, the original K-Y article was content-free -- no one actually sat down to write a decent article for it. Eventually (before I was involved) the worthless K-Y article was deleted and the VoteFair article moved into its place. For a recent example, we never would have gotten here [1] if not for [2]. Getting there required some heated discussion between Markus, VoteFair, you, and I -- but I *do* think the final version was better than the original.

The recent removals that have caused so much fuss were the removal of the two paragraphs from VoteFair's book, removal of the 'discovery' line, and discussion of the forward/backward methods of counting. I essentially support all three -- I would have removed the two paragraphs myself, though I meant to roll it into a 'major cleanup' edit. I have no objections with identifying VoteFair with the method, especially in light of its high Google hits. (Of course, the lack of WP:RS means that won't happen.) I prefer what I think is Markus' wording: "Since 1991, this method has been promoted by Richard Fobes under the name VoteFair ranking." This gets to the heart of the matter and doesn't make any claims about discovery. Personally, I have no doubt that Fobes did discover the method on his own, but it's not relevant: I independently discovered a formula for triangular numbers and re-invented the quadratic formula, but I don't get a mention on those pages. :)

Now, on to more particulars. MarkusSchulze has excellent knowledge of social choice theory, but clearly promotes his own method -- that was evident to me from the first time I looked through the K-Y page history. He prefers to stress negative aspects of other voting systems. There have even been times that I've felt obliged to 'soften' his edits into more neutral language. Certainly this doesn't mean I dislike User:MarkusSchulze, just that we all have our own biases. I think that out of the three (Markus, VoteFair, and myself) I may have the least bias toward this article -- my worst might be a preference for Smith-efficient methods. You, I would hope, are yet more neutral than we three.

But what I wrote on the Talk page of K-Y is true: I have a marked distaste for edit/revert warring, largely after fighting fires at the Hugo Chavez article. You'll forgive me, I hope, for leaving you and Markus to handle the bulk of that tug-of-war. I intend to step in when it's quiet again, as I've identified a number of other trouble spots in the article. I hope you'll stick around at least long enough for that.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle

OK, I'll be a bit more thoughtful before sending to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. I'll try to only to report blatant user names (along the lines of (suckmyd*ck)etc.).

P.S. Check out this Diff. (Not worth a block, but should be a little concerned). Sorry for any trouble Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 01:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you got something better to do?

Perhaps you could save the nanny act for someone who buys what you're selling. That group would not include me.

Also, doing it on behalf of an long-time and unrepentant edit warrior? Not the best of choices to be making there. --Calton | Talk 20:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that, while Calton's block removal request was denied, another admin has nonetheless shortened the block time from one week to 48 hours. I just wanted to make sure you knew. Thanks. 66.35.125.109 (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite aware, and I'm actively participating in that AN/I discussion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Designing an All-Inclusive Democracy

I just wanted to give you a heads-up to a possible WP:COI by User:Peter Emerson at Quota Borda system, Template:Electoral systems, Matrix vote, and some others. I have not reverted anything, but would appreciate some other eyes if you can spare them.

On an unrelated note, thanks for the help at K-Y.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

request for comment

Hi there. I'm sorry to be spending time on these old edit war type issues, but as someone who worked a lot on the Voting System article, I'd appreciate if you could quickly comment at Talk:Voting_system#dispute_about_external_link. Thank you! --Hermitage (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. This will probably bleed over into a few other articles, i.e. Condorcet method, Schulze method, and Ranked pairs, but I haven't written my little brief for those yet.

moved article

Rob, User:MarkusSchulze suggested that this article Modified Borda Count be moved to Borda Count. I did this. Could you please remove the old page? I could make a redirect page.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a straightforward merge; I'll finish it up. Incidentally, when you copied the content from Modified Borda Count, you should have left a note in the edit summary saying what page it was from. But there's an easily-removable POV paragraph ("MBC is not a good electoral system"), so I'll leave the note as I remove that. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob. I did a cut and paste. You did a very good job with the clean-up and de-POV'ing!--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Meaningless platitudes?

I think your comment was too harsh. If I would have known I would have been superficially judged based upon just a candidate statement, I would have not answered any questions. I can accept being opposed for my experience, but I cannot accept my direct tackling of the relevance of the position as 'meaningless'. Monsieurdl 11:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for clarifying your comment- I just was hoping for more feedback and encouragement rather than short, blunt comments. Maybe I should have waited a few months, but then again I figured by showing my capabilities I would find some success. I wrote the statement to sum up how I felt about the importance of ArbCom, but I guess it was too short and sort of political sounding. Your comments were greatly appreciated- we all need encouragement to feel like what we are doing makes a difference. Monsieurdl 23:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Unjustified block

Yes, I did indeed laugh at the odd turn of events. However, I've also learned that certain actions can result in my wasting everyone's time. I owe you guys an apology; thanks for helping to set everything straight! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Block rationale

Blocked "using one of Durova and Guy's discredited reasons"? Account appeared compromised, block was to protect the editor, who was immediately notified by email to rectify things— it lasted all of the few minutes it took for him to confirm he really was himself. Which "discredited reason" is it I used, exactly? — Coren ^(talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't do drama. I paid very little attention to the Durova smoke, and even less the the following fallout. I was not aware of that "german trolling" bit. — Coren ^(talk) 00:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Bravo Golf Hotel

Yeah, I thought it was just someone spelling out their intials in the NATO Phonetic alphabet, but then I Googled just to be on the safe side and found this. Even if it's a coincidence, we can't allow it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BITE has no teeth

Thanks very much for your user page. It's refreshing and very well written. I'd like to join you on your quest to fight elitism. Or, I like the way you expressed it, "make WP a more welcoming place for new users." It would be nice if biters would get official warnings. Is there any way to make a suggestion about evaluating a policy where biters would get warnings, enough of which could eventually get them blocked? Fredsmith2 (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment! "Templating the regulars" isn't a very popular thing to do, and I don't think threatening people with blocks would effect a positive change in Wikipedia. Perhaps the right approach would be to start a WP:WikiProject Newcomers, which I'm quite surprised doesn't exist. The idea would be to watch pages involved with helping newbies (like WP:New contributors' help page), and to advocate on behalf of newbies on policy pages such as WP:SOCK, WP:BITE, and WP:U. (I was going to add as a goal "making processes like AfD less overtly hostile", but that would be a huge and possibly insurmountable project in itself.) Does this sound like a good approach? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's very cool. I like your very positive approach to WP reform. I think that WP:WikiProject Newcomers sounds like an important WikiProject. You mentioned that newbies always end up losers in arguements with established users, often because of a rule that the newbie's not familiar with.

It seems that there should be a better mediate these discussions. Instead of the resolution being, "You are right, User:Established, and User:Newbie577 is wrong," I think it would be better if the discussions went something like, "User:Established, while you are technically right, you really need to work with User:Newbie577 to make Wikipedia better, rather than just reverting his or her work. WP:BITE should be able to be integrated into this resolution." Fredsmith2 (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Block of UnDeAdOvErLoRd2

I find your block of UnDeAdOvErLoRd2 inappropriate and not at all based on the username policy. Why do you feel this name was so destructive to Wikipedia that you needed to preemptively block it without discussion? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your statement "not at all based on the username policy" seems a bad faith way to start a discussion. I liken it to taking a 27" Aluminum Louisville Slugger (baseball bat) and smashing in all the teeth of somebody, and then saying "Hi, I'd like to have a calm discussion with you." When you can make a less offensive approach, perhaps I will feel more inclined to reply. JERRY ^talk _contribs 13:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and that is useful feedback, though a bit harshly stated in itself. I'll try to be less blunt when questioning username blocks. But then, admins making critical comments at each other is one thing which presumably we both can handle, while the newbie is unlikely to come back. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but I am a newbie admin, it was my first day on the job. I agree I will need to be more thick-skinned, and many of my actions will probably be questioned, and probably with less tact. So no hard feelings, eh? JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Card

Merry Christmas and...

Happy New Year! -- Chetblong^Talk_Sign

Merge plurality voting system and simple majority voting

The "plurality voting system" article and the "simple majority voting" article are two Wikipedia articles on the same voting system. Therefore, these articles should be merged. Here is the corresponding discussion. However, Abd de-merged these articles. As Abd refuses to answer to my arguments, I would like to ask you to make a decision about whether the "plurality voting system" article and the "simple majority voting" article should be merged.

To be more concrete: Some parts of the "simple majority voting" article are about plurality (in contrast to supermajority requirements). Some parts are about the plurality voting system. It seems that the author of the "simple majority voting" article didn't understand the difference. (May's theorem only says that in the two-option case the plurality voting system is the unique voting system that satisfies anonymity, neutrality, and positive responsiveness. But in the multi-winner case, there are many voting systems with these properties. The claims in the "simple majority voting" article are simply false.) Yellowbeard (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yellowbeard claims I "refuse to discuss." Actually, discussion has been opened on this issue, by me, in Talk for both articles.[3] [4] No response yet.

You will probably already understand this, but before taking any report or request from Yellowbeard at face value, I'd suggest looking at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrcprm2026 (4th)‎ for my analysis of this user's history. He is a user who has almost entirely confined himself, for a year and a half, to AfD and content deletion/redirection of voting systems articles. Many of his targets are, indeed, inappropriate for Wikipeida, but nearly all are, it appears, attempts to remove "inconvenient" content from Wikipedia, as can be seen by the pattern of behavior, visible to those who know voting systems and current political activism regarding them. None of this is relevant specifically to the possible dispute here, but is a caution: Yellowbeard presents misleading evidence, so his statements should be verified. Certainly I would welcome the same for mine.

His successful AfDs have mostly been due to lack of participation; many voting systems articles were originally written by experts or knowledgeable students, who wrote from their own knowledge, making them useful as stubs for the development of mature articles, but needing substantial cleanup and sourcing. The experts -- I know some of them -- do not regularly watch Wikipedia articles, and return to Wikipedia after a lapse and are puzzled. What happened to the article I wrote?)

Now, to the dispute: Simple majority voting is not Plurality voting system; the two names are never used for the same method. Yes, one can consider Simple majority voting to be a special case of Plurality voting system, the "two-candidate case," with a majority required (even with two candidates, in some cases blanks will be included in the basis for a majority; technically, though, this is a three-candidate case). But, then again, so is Instant-runoff voting, Approval voting, and nearly every voting system. In practice, students of this field know these as distinct and different systems, each with their own characteristics. Robert's Rules, for example, approves of Simple majority voting, which is standard practice, and disapproves of allowing any win with less than a true majority, i.e., Plurality voting system. Now, this is my opinion, but content decisions should be made, as suggested in the Merge tag, through discussion and consensus. Not through appeal to an administrator based on semi-private content arguments. I only saw this request due to finding it necessary to watch all of Yellowbeard's contributions, if I care about voting systems articles. And I do.

--Abd (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, even Abd doesn't understand the difference between plurality (in contrast to absolute majority or supermajority) on the one side and the plurality voting system on the other side. Yellowbeard (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Yellowbeard is encouraged to educate me and other editors through the discussions that have been opened on the proposed merge in Talk:Simple majority voting and Talk:Plurality voting system, as suggested above. --Abd (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, my talk page really isn't the place for this. I do appreciate that someone responded after Yellowbeard in the first place, though, or otherwise I would be scratching my head about what exactly he was on about. Moving to Talk:Simple majority voting now. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion please

Hi, a new user -who's behaviour was seen as troublesome- was reported at RFCN. I'd like your opinion of the discussion at RFCN for user "economicscrimesunit". Am I trying too hard to assume good faith? Should a newbie with such behaviour get a username block, or should they get warnings for that behaviour first? I'm asking so I have some idea for future reference, not so that I can have that case looked at again. Kind regards, Dan Beale-Cocks 00:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that block went correctly. That user knew what was going on, was aware that people were bothered by his username and wanted him to change it, and yet he was trying to retain the username to make some sort of point. Coren even warned him, very early on. The "block him for sounding like a role account" argument was crap, but in the end RFC/N did what it's there to do. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments: "the" verifier or "a" verifier?

FYI. I have opened an RfC on this question. See Talk:P = NP problem#Request for comments: "the" verifier or "a" verifier?. You receive this message because you are one of the participants in the earlier discussion.  --Lambiam 08:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Which of my contributions indicate that? Why vandalism reversions or my speedy deletion tagging? Is there police against jokes? Batbert (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The "joke" is tasteless and not very funny, and removing warnings is always a dubious thing to do. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to oppose at my RFA

I've replied to your oppose. Thank you for taking the time to consider my request, I appreciate that. Best regards, Rudget. 14:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Although, it is clear you'll possibly never get on with me. I'll at least try to work with you to show you my contribution rationales. For example, helping you rewrite the username policy. If you're right in your oppose, it shouldn't do no harm. Would that be acceptable? Rudget. 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username policy

Hi, thanks for catching the possible issues with my changes to the policy; obviously I didn't intend to make significant changes to the meaning of the policy and my rewording of that bullet point was an attempt to clarify the matter that unfortunately still wasn't quite right.

However, you also appear to have reverted most of the rest of my changes. If there is a problem with these changes, this is fine, but I would appreciate an explanation of what is wrong. Thanks – Gurch 02:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ack - that was a mistake. I suppose I must have been looking back at what changed before I clicked "edit". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cross-project username/login

Hi- I saw that you'd engaged in discussions on this topic in couple places. I'd never heard of the proposal to unify usernames/logins across projects before this morning, and looked around at several discussions about it. They look to be currently inactive, most of them for a while. Do you know if the proposal is still on the table? It seemed initially attractive, to me, but after thinking on it and reading the discussions, it seems the implementation could be more disruptive than beneficial. I should say up front that my assessment here is based on a foundation of near-complete ignorance of how the wiki systems work together. I wonder if they have considered simply having everyone pick a home wiki, then letting the system append that wiki's subdomain to the front of one's username when one makes an edit outside one's home wiki. For example, if I make an edit on the French WP, the history would show the user as en:EHM02667. I can't imagine I'm the first person to come up with this approach, but couldn't find any mention of it anywhere. -Eric ^(talk) 17:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

They've rejected the namespace approach, unfortunately.

As far as I can tell, lead developer Brion Vibber is pushing for a single user namespace because it makes life easier for developers. It won't mean that you can actually stay logged in as you switch domains (most browsers won't allow that), nor will it provide a unified watchlist (except as a feature request way down the line). They're thinking of an integrated "new messages" notification, last I heard, where you may have to log on somewhere else to actually read the messages.

But the only effect when implemented is that you will know that a particular username refers to the same user across all Wikis, and the same username and password will log you in on any Wiki. The part that I find disgusting is that people with conflicting usernames will get to fight to the death with their edit counts; loser gets their username changed (and since they may not be there to say what it gets changed to, this will be equivalent to a block in many cases).

I like the technical idea of a unified user table, and I've argued on places that WP:U that people who unify their own usernames should not be punished (startlingly, there are people who prefer to block usernames that are in other languages). I would support a counter-proposal with namespaces if there were one, but such a proposal would need to have a developer behind it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!

Dear Rspeer, my sincere thanks for your participation in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 17:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/Thehelpfulone

Hi Rspeer,

I have replied to your comment, although rather late, please accept my apologies!

-- The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Review)} 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I ping you again... to see if you can get an answer to my reply? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

re: WP:UAA

Greetings. I do not require a lecture on how to use WP:UAA since I have over 200 contributions. You don't see how "Fdfsdfsdfs" should be blocked under UAA? That's a shock to me. It's an obvious random sequence of characters that falls under confusion - difficulty in identifying users. This is not about what I do, or do not "like". Cstass (if you read my nomination) was a name I wanted immediate admin eyes on for possible vulgarity issues. Please reconsider your comments. Wisdom89 (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

WP:U policy discussion

I hope you don't take my reply to you in the wrong way - it wasn't meant to be biting, or sarcastic. I just felt a little sideswiped by your initial response that's all. Thanks dude. Cheers. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no need for the apology. I have gotten sarcastic at a couple points in that discussion myself. It's good to have your input on that page, even though I disagree with it considerably. If only like-minded username policy reformers talked on WT:U, then WT:U would be a bad place to make decisions that affect all of Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA

If you are interested, I answered the question on my RFA concerning the username reports. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

10c creation date

"Many of them uploaded images completely correctly, before the 10c-rationale policy existed." - would you have a diff for a creation date for 10c? I'd like to add it to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria compliance, which is fast becoming a history of the compliance enforcement process... Carcharoth (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No idea -- I think digging in the history will be the only way to find out. I do remember a time when a copyright tag was enough, though. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

balm

You applied balm to me, johnshoemaker, Re: rapid deletions of Non-mystical cabala page.

I've just replied to User talk:Allstarecho. Although he did the right thing by removing your link to a non-existent article, I feel that he reacted too harshly by accusing you of vandalism.

Please allow me to respond to each of your ideas. Consider menitoning to Alstarecho that I did not term his correction “harsh”. By chance he lives right up the road from me here in Laurel Miss. There is a dance band here to which I’d like to invite him and perhaps he could direct me to one in Jackson where I worked for the Miss. State Bd. Of Health.0000

I'm sorry that your first interaction on Wikipedia was this harsh exchange. Here's what seems to me to have happened: you tried to create an article on "Non-mystical cabala" twice, and both times it was deleted by an admin named Keilana because it was "unsalvageably incomprehensible". (I'm an admin, so I can see the deleted text, and with all due respect I have to agree with her assessment.)

Can’t blame either of you. It is a well kept secret that the little marks that embody Torah aren’t letters in a spoken language that just got lost in Babylon around 600BCE. Each mark is a Hieroglyph that every human can recognize as an element of his own thinking. Parade Magazine and Suarez revealed this in the ‘60s. Before I Babel on please consider directing me to a sentence here or in the deleted text that is unsalvageable so that I can use it as fertilizer to possible create something digestible.0000

When you tried to add the link to Kabbalah, it was always pointing to an article that had already been deleted. Allstarecho reverted this change each time. I assume you weren't aware that your edits were being undone by other Wikipedians until you saw Allstarecho's warning, so I'd say this was all just a big miscommunication.

Primarily my mis. Writing of Hieroglyphs and expecting comprehension is like walking into a classroom and writing F=MA without giving some feeling, understanding for the elements of the equation.0000

Writing an article from scratch is often not a successful way to start editing Wikipedia - there's a lot you have to know. I'd suggest making smaller changes and participating in talk page discussions about how to improve articles you're interested in.

I considered my change to an existing page minimal(addtion of two words) directing readers to another definition of Qof Baht Lammed Hay (many, English spellings) that is intellectual, in that symbols have definitions. I wasn’t aware of the sensitivity of the “Kabbalah” page editors to mention of a use of the term what wasn’t mystical (above the intellect.) . Won’t p on that fence again!

Consider this: on the disambiguous page for all the spellings for QBLH allow the one used by Suarez to go to a page, say my talk page, that reveals what was taught to him and he put in his books Cypher of Genesis, Kabala Trilogy etc. This would include the article in Parade.

Looking forward to a bit of fertilizer which will nurture the page. How to word wrap?Johnshoemaker (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the technical thing: your words will wrap correctly on all lines that you don't start with spaces. To indent, you put a colon (:) at the beginning of the line instead.

Now, I'm going to try to talk you out of writing your article on hieroglyphs and cabala. It doesn't sound like the kind of thing that can be backed up by multiple published, reliable sources. Here's the policy on verifiability, and I'd say the most pertinent rule on that page is that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". A magazine article from the '60s won't do it; if Carlos Suarez and his ideas haven't gotten the attention of other writers, they won't stick on Wikipedia either. I see you've been told this on User talk:Jfdwolff as well.

So, again, I think it was wrong for Allstar to call you a "vandal", because you are not actually trying to harm Wikipedia. However, the people who remove your content are doing the right thing, because it is not verifiable. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

0000Thanks for the word wrap lesson.0000

It doesn't sound like the kind of thing that can be backed up by multiple published, reliable sources. I'd say the most pertinent rule on that page is that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources".

0000Carlo Suarez Published Works in French and English Library of Congress listings

Sur un orgue de barbarie Librairie de France 1928

La Nouvelle Créatio Paris Edité par Au Sans Pareil 1929

Bousquet, Suares, Lamour ? Paris 1930

Krishnamurti [Paris] Les Éditions Adyar 1932

La Comédie psychologique P., Chez José Corti 1932

Critique de la raison impure et les paralipomènes de la comédie psychologique: composés sous forme de dialogues avec Joé Bousquet et René Daumal Paris

 1935,1955
 

Krishnamurti and the unity of man Bombay : Chetana 1953

cuoi Israël ? (les livres de la Genèse)  ? 1954?

Critique de la raison impure Paris 1955

Lettre aux Juifs, aux Chetiens et aux Musulmans  ? 1957

L'hyperbole chromatique  ? 1957:

Cahiers Internationaux de Symbolisme - 1962

La bible restituée Mont-Blanc / Sophon 1967 / 1983:

Le sepher yetsira Mont-Blanc 1968

Cantique des cantiques Genève, Éditions du) Mont-Blanc 1969

The Cipher of Genesis Shambhala 1970

I Am Cain in Maitreya 2 [Shambhala] 1971

The Song of Songs Shambhala 1972

Notes on Sepher Yetsira in Tree: 2 ed. David Meltzer Summer 1972

I Am Cain II in Maitreya 3 [Shambhala] 1972

The Autiot of the Shekinah in Tree: 3 Winter 1972

Vrai mystère de la passion de Judas Paris, Éditions Caractères 1972

The Passion of Judas Shambhala 1973

The Book of Eve in Maitreya 4 [Shambhala] 1973

La Nouvelle Création Paris 1929, trans. Eduard Roditi, revised 1973

Les Abris Mensongers Paris, R. Laffont 1973

Les Spectrogrammes/Spectrograms Mont-Blanc/Fred Wolf 1973

What About "Ra"? in Tree: 4 Winter 1974

The Resurrection of the Word Shambhala 1975

Mémoire sur le retour du rabbi qu'on appelle Jésus Paris : R. Laffont 1975

Ange masqué (L'). Traité de l'intelligible et du sensible Paris 1985

The Sepher Yetsira Shambhala 1976

The Qabala Trilogy Shambhala 1985

Second Coming of Reb Yhshwh Weiser 1994

The Mind of J. Krishnamurti ed. Luis Vas (conversation w/Suares) 1997

Ouvrages

Eklectic librarie: Recherche par Auteur: carlo suares

Eklectic Library: Ange masqué (L'). Traité de l'intelligible et du sensible

artistesecrivainss

EzoOccult - le Webzine d’Hermès v2.01 : Les Tâches Immédiates de la Pensée Révolutionnaire.

Critique de la raison impure (Jean-Pierre Voyer) ref. Suares

The Mind of J. Krishnamurti by Luis S R Vas

Coïncidence par Carlo Suarès - Kabbale En Ligne ("L'Ange masqué")

Search: suares - ARSITRA.org - Bénéficier du nécessaire. Se consacrer à l'Essentiel

Tables des matières (1956-1968)

A Unidade do Homem - Henry Miller

0000 All "cabala" sources posit Hieroglyphic value to the Aleph-Tav. Suarez is the only definitions that are consistent with a Heb./Eng. dictionary. I can't imagine any Rabbi considering it an exceptional idea that the A-T are spiritual glyphs.000000

A magazine article from the '60s won't do it; if Carlos Suarez and his ideas haven't gotten the attention of other writers, they won't stick on Wikipedia either.

0000 The '65 Parade article didn't mention Suarez. This was an independent noting of special circumstances under which the Hieroglyphs would be revealed to a Jewish male. The values weren't given, obviously. I mentioned that article to indicate the prohibition of "talking about it" until one is 50. This proscription is found in the New Testament where the Pharisees are written to have said, "why are you speaking of these things and you are not yet 50?"

After 26 years of studying every word, several times, in three Heb/Eng dictionaries, every reference to Suarez or cabala in Tulane Univ library, and every reference to cabala in Barnes & Nobel and the internet it finally dawned recently that popular cabala works to hide the values of the A-T from any intellect.

As an example, please construct a sentence defining the subject matter of WP Kabbala. The intellect uses defined symbols manipulated with at least a rudimentory logic system. It is in vain to use "God" since no two persons have the same definition(limitation on its meaning).000000:

I went out of my way to welcome you when another user wanted to just throw you out the door as a common vandal. In return, I think you should try to follow Wikipedia's rules.

I see that you've posted your "Non-mystical cabala" article in other sneaky places -- 0000This was done the first time I interacted with WP, --last Oct? It didn't attract negative attention, any attention. The antpile scrambled only after I attempted to have the term "Traditional mystical Kabbalah" page point to a non-mystical page created so there was something to point to a week ago. I can understand your feeling at finding it after being courteous and thinking I added it later.0000

I found it on User:Tripbeing (user pages are for identifying users, not for articles that don't make it into the encyclopedia), and I saw that you edited the humor page Meta:Religion and Wikipedia to complain about your article being rejected on Wikipedia.

0000I'll go back and look to see if I agree I complained. I attempted humor. You're right. Closer to complaining than humor. I'll fix that! 00000

Your article does not belong on Wikipedia. Every editor who has encountered your article has agreed with that. We are not stopping you from getting your own Web page where you write about whatever you want; meanwhile, here on Wikipedia, we try to enforce standards like verifiability. If you try to evade these standards by reposting your article or a reference to it again, it really will be vandalism.

You are welcome to edit Wikipedia, but please find something else to do. A topic area that you don't feel so strongly about would be a good start.

0000I am drawn to share the keys to Torah; not to edit. I have met strong feelings of a group opposing one who writes that the keys are not "beyond the intellect" or non-mystical. Certainly the article needs re-writing; unless all the encountering editors feel so strongly that the A-T as Hieroglyphs must not be discussed on WP, one of them could be able to discuss one of the article's sentences with the goal of making sense of it or asking for an example of a spiritual glyph.Johnshoemaker (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnshoemaker (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it my job, or anyone else's job, to make your writing make sense? Just because I defended you once, as I defend other newbies who make mistakes in their first edits on Wikipedia, this does not mean I am suddenly going to take an interest in kabbalah, or do lots of research to check your sources and figure out what you're talking about.

Just one hint from a cursory glance: your sources seem to be things written by Carlos Suarez. Read WP:Verifiability again. Those don't hold up on their own. You need things written by reliable sources about Carlos Suarez and his ideas. And for what little I know about the study of kabbalah, I don't think it's a field likely to produce reliable sources.

My recommendation is to get your own web page, where you can write about whatever you want without having to meet standards of verifiability. I am totally unfamiliar with the topic area you are writing about, and I don't care to become familiar with it, but it shows all the warning signs of not belonging on Wikipedia. Try again if you must, but I'm done helping you, because I'm tired of this. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Sorry I made that remark, but that user has been a huge dick lately, so I kinda lost it :P. Apoligies and thank you for the imput on the complaint system, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done

[5] Loved your comment there. Those complain templates are just silly sometimes... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nonsense Usernames

Hi. Sure, I take that section seriously. I apologize for my mis-step here, I usually use good judgement with regards to usernames that don't meet policy. ArcAngel (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ooops

Sorry, I tagged the worng username, there was one underneath it. That's what happens when you stay up all night, although one of the bots on ufaa tagged another username as "repetition", so that could also be why I tagged it as confusing, thanks for letting me know. Troplock (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, all the best, Troplock (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: S.mandara's UAA

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mysore&diff=prev&oldid=203566971 21655 ^τalk/ _ʃign 18:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Sorry. 21655 ^τalk/ _ʃign 19:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sixpencectr

I blocked because it's been my understanding that accounts with potentially promo names like that are to be blocked if they've actually edited in a way to promote the subject of their names. Even if the user is a fan rather than someone working on the band's behalf, that name could lead others to make the same assumption you assume I made and lead to needless forfeiture of good faith in a content dispute, with all the attendant consequences. The username policy is not just about the user and what they do.

They can certainly edit if they want another name. I did switch the block to soft to allow another account to be created as long as they pick a permissible name. If you wish to unblock, however, with the attendant risk, go ahead, it's on you. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The risk of other editors assuming an inability to follow NPOV due to the name and edit wars or such arising. I think we recently blocked User:Abuse truth indefinitely because the name was provocative enough within the articles he was working on (that was, to be fair, on top of an agenda he already seemed to be pushing. But I said somewhere, and so did someone else reviewing the unblock requests, that the username was enough provocation to justify a block. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you want to. It's a judgement call that we have the right to make. I hope it works out. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Long Cat is Looong username

See the original UAA report. The name is a 4chan meme, suggesting intent to edit disruptively. That's why I added username to the reasons for the block. Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Resolved

It looks like you're going to have to look for a new way of doing this - the helperbots remove it when they remove a user from the bottom of the user reported list ([6]). Really not sure how you could do it - maybe ask the bot operators? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Heya, regarding this (seems to have sparked a small revert spree, that I'd like to not see continue), I was wondering if you could point me at the well-advertised community-overturn/rejection of that bot approval? I'd like to help get this sorted out. SQL^{Query me!} 04:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. As to the discussion, I'm not sure the discussion on the ANB page, really constitutes community consensus, due to being a very obscure, extremely polarized noticeboard. As far as the RFAR proposed decision regarding betacommand goes, I'm not sure that a small discussion by the very same set of core users would honestly be consensus either. I haven't gotten a chance to read ANB yet (I had commented there a few times, but, ended up having to de-watchlist it, due to the continual regurgitation of the same few topics repeatedly, by the same core set of users... As an active BAG member myself, I could probably repeat the arguments for approval to you, but, I suspect I'd be wasting both my time and yours. Anyhow, rejected, or approved, I have severe doubts that it is actually going to be run anyhow at this point, so, what it's tagged as really does not matter to me. I know, you're not going to revert-war over it, I just smelled one coming, and was trying to get the relevant facts on the issue, so I could help resolve the situation if/when it gets out of hand. Thanks again, for the reply! SQL^{Query me!} 05:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, part of your reasoning for marking it as rejected by the community appears to be, because there are far better image bots running now. That's not how it works. If you would like, I would be happy to start (and place notifications in the appropriate venues), a discussion on de-flagging / botting / whatever, that bot. However, due to that bot being a clone, the master bot would also need to be discussed.

As an active BAG member, I don't like being characterized as well, as trying to create the illusion of consensus. I didn't have squat to do with the bot (I didn't even know I was listed as an operator!), and I have been very supportive of re-opening the discussion. If you have accusations to levy against individual members, please do so against them, not as the group as a whole. SQL^{Query me!} 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Please understand that my decision to take a short break and possibly leave all together was not because of you, I am a big boy and can handle criticism, as you say I am responsible for my actions. I took some time to read your userpage, and found it well…. inspiring to be honest. I will defiantly take a different look at administrative functions. Thank you for all your help, Tiptoety ^talk 23:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

re

Here. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Littleolive oil

Not just WTBDWK. Check her contribs and you'll find remote viewing, reiki, and a bunch of other paranormal/pseudoscience stuff. So much for "I have never edited a paranormal article." Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: UAA

Sorry about that. I did not see the name actually spelled out a phrase. I looked too fast. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 19:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

UAA request

Thanks for the tip. It just seemed a bit strange that a fully formatted article with a lot of red links would be the user's first edit outside the sandbox. Set my red flags to flying. He seems to have done a good job of establishing his notability in the meantime, so here's wishing him luck. Take care.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For newbie-hugging

I am in awe of what you have done with the Wikipedia:Username policy, and the clear and patient way you have dealt with this matter over an extended period with little thanks or reward. Nice one! SilkTork *^YES! 16:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For Doing the Right Thing in such a clear, patient and brilliant way.
Presented by SilkTork *^YES! 16:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Heliac

Thanks for blocking User:Heliac. He'll want watching after the block expires: his actions tonight, at least, seem to consist of rolling back random IP edits (and at least one non-IP edit) as "vandalism", with no regard to the actual quality of the edits. And he's unrepentant about it. I've rolled back two more of his reverts, and although I don't have time to, we should theoretically go back and review all the guy's edits. Sigh. (See also my comments here and here.) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Earlier this evening I had perfectly reasonable edits reverted by Heliac. You were good enough to remove his Unconstructive Edits notice from my talk page. I have just had a very similar incident with the article Croatia with a user named Cream. It appears to me that I restored a series of unjustified deletions -- at least that was my intention. Could it be the same person? 24.36.35.188 (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's the same person: most of User:Cream's vandalism reversions look legitimate. But your restorations at Croatia were clearly proper, and I have re-restored them. I don't know what Cream was thinking there. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm kind of new here, and it's been a confusing night. 24.36.35.188 (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

report usernames, get a barnstar

Hi, have a look at some of the awards on WP:AWC. At the top of the list there's careful article building stuff. Near the end of the list there's the "New User Watch Challenge" - "Make 40 reports to WP:UAA. Reported names must comply with WP:U, and only count when an admin deems the report correct. Since we are dealing with admin time and real persons here there is a limit of 60 reports a person for completing the challenge. The easiest way to find violation user names is either by watching Special:log for new user creations, or keeping an eye on the names of G11 article creators(Every now and then the names are promotional). Good luck!". Should anything be done? Dan Beale-Cocks 13:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

On a related matter, why is there a redirect from wikipedia space and a WP: shortcut to someone's usersubpage? SamBC(talk) 13:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. They're asking for a 66% success rate. That's pretty horrid. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Oliviermillerioux

This user attempted to create a promotional article (as seen from his deleted crontributions). I'll take a look at it again and unblock as needed. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

See Special:Undelete&target=Olivier_millerioux. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I see it's a person's name, not a company. My French is quite poor. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've un-blocked the poor guy. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Centre for Conflict and Peace Studies

I've taken the liberty of cleaning the article up. From my searching it appears that the group is somewhat notable, so I don't think a Prod or AfD are necessary. Now we should just wait and see if they respond to your query. For now perhaps we can remove the name from WP:UAA? Thanks Rspeer. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, one other thing. Since my RfA, and even before that, I've been taking the time to try and talk with users using the username concern template. Take a look at this example [7]. I ddi not report them of course. However, the user was blocked after they asserted "Bich" was their last name! Talk about biting the newbies. This should really be undone. Perhaps someone should mention this to the blocking admin. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort in this area!

Now, I extend a whole lot of good faith toward newbies, but I don't think we should be worrying about Bichface00. I kind of doubt that "Bich" was his last name, and I think making a big deal out of it would most likely just end up making it look like defending newbies is a sucker's game. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I should follow up on that. This definitely doesn't mean I would assume bad faith from all users whose name contains "Bitch". In fact, I was upset when User:Punkbitch was blocked, as that seemed to be a harmless self-identification. But "Bichface", claiming it's his/her last name, just strains credibility. I might have preferred to wait to see if they vandalized and place a vandalism block if appropriate, but I don't have an objection to the simple softblock that was used in this case. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point about the self-identification, probably was just an expression of an angst/anarchist punk rock attitude. I tend to agree with you, it is unlikely that "bich" was indeed the last name of this fellow. About my concern though, in your opinion was that misplaced? Obviously you understand where the concerned lied, but I suppose the whole point is that if the user doesn't edit at all, and it's a questionable name, no harm is being done. Oh, and since it's a softblock and will not affect registered users from said IP, I'll concede to the block. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Rspeer, would you be so kind as to look at my latest contributions to WP:UAA and see if you agree/disagree with any of my reports or comments so far? I'm making a conscious effort. Thanks a bunch. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're doing fine. Perhaps even erring on the side of caution. If you're asking for the purpose of adminship: sure, you've made up for your past mistakes here. Now I'd suggest finding a different area of process where you can stand out with good contributions, because I don't think people ever get promoted to admin for being good at UAA the way they get rejected for being poor at it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't asking specifically for a future RfA, but since you are the WP:U guru/activtist (from what I've seen), I thought your feedback would be aces, so I'll probably continue to defer to you int his area. Nevertheless, hopefully you'll note, of course, that WP:UAA is certainly not the only area in the project space I contribute to. Beyond the scope of my AFD, AIV, UAA, ANI, HD, and RFPP, I think I'm gonna try some IfD and Deletion Review and get back into editing like I did for Rush et al. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, what is your take on this? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree at all with many of Calton's actions, but this is one of the more benign and possibly even useful things he does. He establishes evidence of spamming before he reports names to UAA, which is more than we get in most reports. Now, occasional blocks he requests seem unnecessary, and I think he might be better off reporting somewhere such as WT:WPSPAM (in which case he can report even the ones that aren't blatant in their usernames). It's kind of a shame that we're so lacking for a high-profile place to block spammers that the username policy has to fill in the job.

I see you've already made the mistake of bothering Calton about it. I'm sorry. Let it be. When the newbies Calton goes after are the ones who deserve it, things are going pretty darn well. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's done, I'm not going to draw it out. I saw that another user also mentioned the fact that his reports were stales and perhaps unnecessary, and then I saw a slew of other reports in the same vein. I hope I didn't offend. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blackletter687

Who is User:Blackletter687 and why is he telling me my IP address is registered to Comcast? (To the best of my knowledge I am not) Why is such an official looking message coming from such an unofficial looking source, and a user who appears not to have existed an hour ago? 24.36.35.188 (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:Questionable block on UAA

Duly noted; I have been and will always be cautious in my user name blocks, as you probably saw with me removing like 8 of User:Calton's reports, but as the WP:U says under the quote you gave me, "As with all other blocks, admins should use their discretion and common sense." Sorry, but my common sense says that User:P3t3rp33nw3ntzxc0r3 is not here to contribute constructively. As per the policy change I am extremely hesitant to block per confusion, but I still feel it is within an administrator's discretion if s/he feels it will better the project or keep the project from being vandalized. Thanks for pointing it out though, and I do very much respect your view on things over at WP:UAA and I am glad that we no longer block user names that are not even close to being confusing. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Username catch-up

Evening Rspeer. I've been away on holiday for a couple of weeks so haven't really been too involved with WP:U. Anything big happen with the policy or is it still same old, same old? Hope everythings good at your end. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. Well, you can see most of what's happened at WT:U. There's been a small pushback to the April 4 changes, ostensibly because we didn't establish consensus the right way (odd that they don't seem to object to any of the other changes that were made the same way). MCB was really pushing for a poll (and Kim Bruning smacked him down over that). Once the issues and the arguments were clarified, though, the pushback seems to have generally faded away. Of course, there remain some people convinced that this isn't the "real" username policy; it's not like AzaToth is going to update TWINKLE anytime soon.

There's also been some uncertainty about the purpose of the holding pen, which some people conflated with the issue above by thinking the holding pen was part of the policy. You might want to try to explain it better.

And, of course, there's Calton. You've seen that issue already. I think you're handling it pretty well.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, it looks like we've got some educating to do between us. I think a bold statement in the header about the change might be a good idea, and encourage people to use the holding pen, rather than simply reporting/blocking. I understand the concern about the holding pen, it's not in policy, but it's a way of keeping tabs on who's been warned and who hasn't. I think I might go to AN tomorrow and try and explain things - it normally gets quite a wide spread of admins and users looking at it.

What I think we need to do is to try and get AzaToth to remove the automatic reporting feature of twinkle, especially in relation to confusing usernames. We could perhaps consider asking him to report them directly to the holding pen, rather than the main UAA page, but I personally think that if they aren't even editing, there's no need to worry about them.

I think there's a few more improvements we can make to the policy, and I'm looking forward to working with you on them. I think we've finally found a common ground between both our views and I expect we can improve the policy significantly over the next few months, removing the bitey aspects whilst still respecting the editing problems with certain usernames. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That confusing username

We edit conflicted..I was just about to remove it. hehe Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll point out that I did block the name, as a vandalism-only account. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Guess sometimes the "confusing username" correlates with "ill intentions". Ah well. Good call. So, what's your take on the whole confusing username thing now? If they've made no contributions, or maybe one or two that look alright, I'd vote to just remove them on sight from UAA and drop a note on the talk. Sound good to you? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not surprising to see a confusing username correlate with ill intentions. Not that this is a problem -- vandals with confusing usernames make their vandalism easy to find, and we get to place a legitimate hardblock on them when we see them vandalizing.

Anyway, yes, my response to "confusing username" reports on UAA is to remove them and leave a talk page notice. In this case, the notice I left mentioned that although I had blocked the user anyway, UAA is the wrong place to report vandalism. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I figured, and that's my take. Check this out though [8]. In my judgment, there was no good reason to block this username, as they made no contributions. I was edit conflicted again while I was typing a notation that it wasn't really a blatant offense. They could just like the cigarettes! Sigh. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:UAA - User:Yomama 365

Hey there, regarding your post on my talkpage, it seems to me that the username Yomama 365 is a closely resembles a mother insult and that was why I reported the name as disruptive and offensive. Other editors, besides me, could interpret "Yomama" as "Yo mama", which is another way of saying "Your mom". On the other hand, I agree to your statement about not biting newcomers on your userpage. So, as a compromise, I think one of us should tag {{UsernameConcern}} on User talk:Yomama 365 and discuss with the user. Sound good? Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 03:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody gets offended? No. "Yomama" is close enough to "your mama" for some editors to feel that the name is disruptive, if not offensive. Yes, there are parts of the world were "Yomama" isn't considered offensive, but in my experience in the US, "your mama" and any close variation of the spelling is considered an insult, no matter if directly directed at you or indirectly (a username) as in this case. Therefore, I disagree nobody at all on Wikipedia will feel offended when they see this username. "Yomama" is at least a borderline case and the user talk page needs to be tagged with {{Usernameconcern}} as other admins have done with borderline cases. The template at least welcomes the user and then politely informs them of the username issue. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 06:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)