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)[reply]

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 ^message 07:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I need a couple thousand more edits... Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 09:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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['wikipedia']['en'] = tasks.get(sys.argv[0], 'EastDefaultBot')

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As regards this one [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Arabic name thing was not a deliberate action on my part to "bite" a user, nor was it inspired by any political or religious reasons. It was simply a misunderstanding of the policy. Also, I never said he needs to change the username, I said he was encouraged to change the username, which is what the rules said (verbatim). Please be careful with what you are trying to say. I do not want to get in trouble over some twisted words out of someone who does not even know who I am and what I have done all these years.

Also, any more of those attack comments left by you on my talkpage will be treated as a violation of WP:NPA. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I respect you because of who you are here (an admin), but there the respect stops. I admit the templating was a inappropriate, and I reverted the change already. Why are you making a big fuss over a misunderstanding? You haven't answered my question! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know the UAA can be used to block people, but I wasn't aware it always leads to a block. In this case, I thought I would report the user, and someone (an admin, most likely) will talk to him and repeat the same words I said. I didn't think I was reporting this user and asking that he be blocked at the same time. This also clears up my misunderstanding of you. I thought you were a grumpy, p**sed off admin, but now that you brought this up, I understand why you acted the way you did. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the Arabic user we sparred over earlier, it appears that there is another user with a similar name, albeit written in English. The name (سمرقندی) can be transliterated to the word Samarkandi, who is a Wikipedia user [2]. What should we do about this? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you were talking about User:Gluciani, the user was using Wikipedia for promotional purposes only, and uploaded blatantly copyrighted materials as the user's "company logo" (the logo in question belongs to Adobe). Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think the username "Iwirewiki" is close enough to "I-wireless" to constitute a username violation? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no big deal. And I've got to say that, as long as I've been around here, I've never heard of WP:COIN before. Thanks for the heads-up on that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You rejected my WP:UAA report on User:Davem, the Son of God as someone trying to use UAA for a quick resolution to their personal conflict.

My username is Mayalld. My User page reveals that my name is Dave. So, it doesn't take a genius to work out that my RL name is Dave Mayall.

Are you seriously suggesting that registering a user name like this, for the sole purpose of attacking pages that I am involved in is anything other than an abusive username?

Mayalld (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you should have been clearer about that. A TWINKLE-generated message with a reason that looks totally unrelated to the username policy hardly inspires confidence. I'll block him now. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, already blocked. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken! I will attempt to do better, should I get any more stalkers in future. Mayalld (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your reply ([[3]]). For the moment, I created User:NonGuid-FFFF because the other editors were upset and will use this until someone lobbies to reinstate my old account. I did put some additional comments to User:Cumulus Clouds to help deal with some of his issues. Thanks! --GUID-3AD20178-DF60-4BDF-B4AA-7693DA6A6F23 (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A thread about you has been started at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. The concern is that you may have been bitey towards another user. This diff was given in evidence. Feel free to comment. I am not currently taking any side in this case, and am writing this as a neutral notification...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 02:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point with the throwing up, and I'll remove that, but I'm still keeping the mention of the Wiki in the heading.Cfan01 (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Message_From_Xenu about said username. Thought you might be interested. Cheers! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello-
In this edit you removed a fair amount of entries from UAA. As far as I can tell, at least a few of them were valid- since it is general practice to username-block promotional usernames when they are clearly representing (or impersonating) that company, i.e. by creating a spam article about it. Please try to be more careful next time, and have a wonderful weekend. ~ L'Aquatique! [^talk/_stats] 09:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of my WP:UAA reports that you declined with this edit were usernames that based on their contributions (specifically the fact that the title of the only article they had created matched their username, and that the articles in question were clearly G11 spam material) were (in my opinion) blatant violations of WP:U.

"Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are misleading, promotional, offensive or disruptive. Domain names and e-mail addresses are likewise prohibited."

Yes, I agree, blocking a new contributor who created a WP:COI article one time would definitely be biting a newcomer, and yes in ambigious cases administrator discretion should be used and good faith assumed, but blocking a clearly inappropriate username is not biting anyone, its simply keeping the integrity of the encyclopedia. I disagree with your statement that putting a new user "through the harsh process of UAA is unnecessary and may discourage them." An inappropriate username is an inappropriate username: we don't allow spam, period. Blocking an account in violation of WP:U is not the same as blocking for vandalism or 3RR, username blocks come with an invitation to create a new account without an auto-block. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've forgotten what it's like to be a newbie, especially if you say "blocking a clearly inappropriate username is not biting anyone". There's a user behind each username, and this user usually has the daunting task of figuring out the "wiki" concept and our community standards simultaneously.

The "invitation to re-create the account" in the fine print is very ineffective. Have you ever followed up on what happens, for example, when a user is erroneously soft-blocked? Your view that newbies who have just been blocked are docile, happy people who will follow whatever instructions we give them is implausible, to say the least. The most common thing they do is to give up on Wikipedia and go on to some other website that welcomes them more.

And why are you trying to encourage these new users to create a new account in one breath while calling them "spammers" in another? I'd say that it's the "spammer" label that's in error. The two users I declined to block showed very little indication of being malicious spammers. The more likely explanation is that they thought they could create an article on anything they wanted.

It's actually not at all as black and white as you say. When you say "We don't allow spam, period", where do the multiple levels of spam/COI warnings we have fit into your worldview? Or do you think it's wrong to have these warnings at all? Where do you draw the line between "spam" and an honest mistake?

Wikipedia is a weird, confusing place to most people, and it should be no surprise that many people come into it without knowing our standards. When you want to block someone immediately for creating an article called "Save the Swim Team", you're not giving them the chance to make even one mistake. And by dragging the less important issue of usernames into it, you're just confusing the issues. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that usernames are important as they are the living human user's primary representation on the project. Besides that, there's a difference between blocking a user and blocking an username. Let me give you two examples:

About a week ago I tagged an article called Media Power for deletion, standard non-notable corporation and borderline spam type material. After doing a little more background research on the the article's situation, it came to light that the article's creator helped started the company and that the article in question had already been deleted twice before, and several other articles about the "concepts" Media Power came up were also G11'ed. The article's author had been warned for COI on several occasions prior, and possibly could have been blocked for repeatedly creating inappropriate pages. Blocking him was not considered however due to a lack of a final warning, but it could have been an option due to multiple violations (at several different times) of WP:CORP and WP:SPAM, well beyond the AGF "giving benefit of the doubt" stage. This block would have been on the user himself for his actions, (i.e. he could not create another account until the block had expired). This would have had nothing to do with their username, which in it of itself was unrelated to the company.

On the other hand, the user Generationfree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) only had a single contribution Generation free, which was speedily deleted for spam. Their username shows an obvious connection to the company being advertised and their only edit shows an intent to promote that company. The username policy makes this clear, edits that are blatantly promotional submitted by an account that was obviously created by the company or group being promoted are not permitted, this is black and white. Here's the distinction though, the account is blocked due to their username, not their actions. We assume good faith by using a soft block, allowing the user to simply create another account and edit there, or go through the username change process if they'd rather. Maybe this point could be stressed more during the block or in the block tag. Regardless, even if not stressed enough the invitation to create a new account is certainly not fine print. The standard block tag {{uw-ublock}} says in the first paragraph

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because your username does not meet our username policy. This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username.

I respect your point of view, and definitely agree with giving the benefit of the doubt in ambiguous or questionable cases, and Save the swim team might have been a more ambiguous case. But this is why we have a username policy, defining which types of usernames are innapropriate and how to confront them. Under the username policy, the appropriate manner for confronting obvious promotional accounts, is by blocking them with an explanation. It would be one thing if we were blocking these accounts arbitrarily, but the policy accepted through consensus, should be applied evenly. Would you want a user with a clearly bad faith username (such as one with a four letter word, or hate speech) editing with their offensive, obscene, or inciting username while we try to convince them to change it on their own? Is there a better alternative? Should the username policy be overhauled or eliminated all together?

Yes good faith is what our community is built around. We always assume good faith concerning our contributors behind the username, but blocking a clearly inappropriate username is not assuming bad faith. I'm all about giving users another chance, but the fact that they cannot use an account to self promote must be made clear, regardless of how that self-promotion is taking place. If its through an article submission alone, we delete the article and attempt educate the contributor. If its through their usename, however, the username has to change or a new account created. Cheers... Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "Under the username policy, the appropriate manner for confronting obvious promotional accounts, is by blocking them with an explanation."

I am convinced that you are simply wrong when you say this. There are safeguards in the username policy so that it only escalates to a block in the most serious cases, and I should know because I was part of the consensus that helped to develop it. The username policy is not meant to be "the spam policy but faster", and in particular the company/group names section seems to be directly at odds with your claims.

But if that's all wiki-legalese to you, tell me this: how would Wikipedia have suffered if we had simply explained the conflict of interest policy to these users and requested that they create a new username? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]