Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:47, 6 August 2008

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 Misplaced Pages, 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

RFV: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination)

I found you on WikiProject Voting Systems and saw you specialize in NPOV, so I'd like you to please have a look at Instant-runoff voting controversies if you have some spare time, and then post your opinion at WP:AFD/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination) when you have a chance. Thank you. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The bad DEFAULTSORTS

So how is the mass revert going to be handled? Are we going to have a bot do it? If it's going to be done manually, I'd like to help, like the other time a bunch of editors helped mass revert the bot's improper removal of red links. All in all, I think it's a good day. Enigma 07:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

With all the bot-type people around, you'd think we'd be able to get a bot to do the reverting. I think it would be appropriate to ask who wants to do this once the furor has settled down, if it's not dealt with by then. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I need a couple thousand more edits... Scarian 09:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey

A while ago, you mentioned something about using some sort of hack involving sys.argv to log into multiple accounts using the pywikipedia framework... I remember seeing it at the time and noting that it was pretty ingenious, but can't remember for the life of me where it was at. Mind sharing again? :) east.718 at 06:37, May 23, 2008

Sure. You want to change your config.py so that it can choose a different login name based on which top-level script you're running. Something like this should do the trick:

tasks = {
'interwiki.py': 'EastInterwikiBot',
'imagetag.py': 'EastImageBot',
'doom.py': 'EastDestroyTheWholeWikiBot'
}
usernames = tasks.get(sys.argv, 'EastDefaultBot')

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I probably would never have thought that up: I'm not a programmer, and I'm even less of a Python programmer. Thanks for the tip! east.718 at 07:59, May 23, 2008

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of that. —BradV 16:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I said this to Bish too, but yours was one of the ones that meant a lot. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A little help?

I'm kind of new here but I understand you have some connection with usernames. Can you do anything about this? 24.36.74.15 (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I see it's already been dealt with. I expected to see the block on the talk page. 24.36.74.15 (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Message

I've responded to your message on my talk page. Many thanks, Gazimoff _Read 11:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: UAA_reports

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Promotional user names

I guess you really meant this? All of the user names that I reported are clearly promotional and not just COI issues. Can I re-report these user names or is there somewhere else I can refer this to? Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You reported Kalca, TheVeraCompany, and Comp-tutorials. I see no problems created by these names that require a username block. A username block would say "hey, Misplaced Pages doesn't like you. But we might like you more if you come back and hide your conflict of interest from us this time". And that's pointless. We like when people disclose their COI.

Even though the usernames (which are supposed to be the issue if you report things on UAA) strike me as unproblematic, I also checked their edits to see if they need to be blocked for some other reason.

TheVeraCompany created one COI article. It got speedy deleted. The username doesn't make me say "oh, I should go buy some art by Vera Neumann". Of the three reports, this is the user most likely to end up blocked for something (if they re-create the article, I would call it spamming). But for now, the article is speedy deleted and it seems very likely that the issue is resolved.

Kalca wrote an article about themselves. Lots of people do that when they arrive on Misplaced Pages. As I just said, that's not a blocking offense. You have already taken the appropriate action, which is to mark the article for speedy deletion.

Comp-tutorials is a kid. He doesn't understand Misplaced Pages. His pages have been deleted, and the name "Comp-tutorials" is thoroughly generic. No issues remain.

I'm really trying to see what kind of problem you think remains with these names that would make you insist on "referring this somewhere else".

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your wholesale deletion of 9 promotional usernames. These should be considered indivdually, and not just subjected to a "shotgun" approach. Again, you are acting against the consensus of admins at WP:UAA. Accounts with company names used for promotional purposes are a violation of Misplaced Pages username policy, and are routinely blocked, by the dozens, every day, by a large number of different administrators. Trying to unilaterally apply a different standard does not improve the project, and permitting some companies to retain company user names and write articles about themselves does not either, and leads to others believing that it is acceptable. --MCB (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That was low. Of course I am not permitting companies to "write articles about themselves". The thing that prevents companies from writing articles about themselves is speedy deletion, which I highly endorse. I considered the names individually, and determined that none of them were a username problem.

Your attacks on me over username issues have become personal. I would only be willing to discuss this with you further if you will talk about the actual issues involved, not about some ridiculous straw-man version of me who wants companies to go around spamming (have you actually read the things I say on WT:U?), and not about who has which admins on whose side. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

UAA reform?

I've started a discussion about some potential reform to UAA on WT:UAA, that I believe you might be interested in. Shereth 18:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Vct9224175193

I acted a little too quickly. It's not inconsistent. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Coe Memorial Park

Although Coe Memorial Park is funded by a trust, and therefore isn't a company, isn't User:Coememorialpark still a promotional username? The user's name is the name of an organisation, and they created an article promoting that organisation... Am I missing something? (That's not intended to sound sarcastic, it's a genuine question!) Somno (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a considerable debate about this on WT:U and WT:UAA. My position is that names that simply mention an organization aren't harmful, and are actually sometimes helpful because they help us to identify conflicts of interest and handle them appropriately. Blocking them for their username is counterproductive, and the focus should be on what they do. The cases where blocks for "promotional usernames" are relevant are when the username is itself an advertisement.

It's fine to identify that someone might have a conflict of interest, and might be writing about the park glowingly because they're involved in the trust. In many cases that kind of information leads us to delete the article (which people are already quite adept about doing). That's how we prevent people and groups from writing unacceptable articles about themselves, and it's a process that works fine without the username process needing to be involved. Now, I'd do that with Coe Memorial Park except I actually don't think it's a bad article. I wouldn't object if someone else suggested deletion, though (perhaps over notability and verifiability).

In particular, I don't see anything malicious about this user creating the article. What we should do, if this user wants to continue editing, to suggest that they change their username to clarify that he or she is speaking as a single person and not as an organization. But I see no reason why the block you requested on UAA would be warranted. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Coe Memorial Park isn't too bad an article. There is often a lack of consistency in decisions made at UAA, so hopefully the debates you've mentioned will sort that out. Thanks for taking the time to explain your decision to me. Somno (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

ah ok

I suppose it would apply more if his account was named after his company, however his account is purely promotional and his edits not appropriate. Sticky Parkin 23:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What you say about people using the username blocks is true. I've seen it used by others as the first way to remove obviously problematic users of various kinds. Sorry. Sticky Parkin 23:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose so. Then people could come back with a new name and do the same again. I didn't think of it that way. Anyway, I warned him politely :) Sticky Parkin 23:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As regards this one what the person meant is there's an implied swear word he considers to contravene policy as WTF is an abbreviation for 'what the f**k'. Sticky Parkin 23:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

hey it wasn't my report:) obscene/offensive usernames tend to be blocked and if someone had a username with the word f**k written in full and in context in it, I think it would usually be blocked. I get your point though about the tenuousness of WTF, I was just saying in case you hadn't realised what the nominator was (rightly or wrongly) getting at. I suspect that person will have interesting edits though, as did User:Hairyholebutt. Sticky Parkin 23:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:The Anome blocked the WTF bloke, on the grounds of his username but his edits seemed to be vandalism etc too. Sticky Parkin 00:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the username policy and User:Anome clearly felt the same in that instance. Sticky Parkin 00:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying, as the policy says, what is offensive is a matter of opinion, and will vary between individuals. "The line between acceptable and unacceptable user names is based on the opinions of other editors." If you think it's wrong you could always chat to The Anome. If he hadn't been a vandal, people might have been more lenient. Sticky Parkin 00:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose so, but it says offensive usernames may be blocked, anyway. I'm not usually a fan of WP:IAR but when it comes to obvious wronguns or useless articles it can be useful. Policy may eventually change in accordance with what people do, as it's based on consensus. And for instance at AfD, there's effectively a precedent, with not all of the unwritten rules of what's kept and what isn't, written down. You type fast by the way.:) Sticky Parkin 00:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

It was simply a misunderstanding, and I was deeply offended by what you have said. I make constructive edits here, Rspeer, and I have contributed to this encyclopedia, and yet this is the treatment that I get from you?

you left me with no choice but...

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)