User talk:Kiteinthewind/Archive 4

Keith deligero AfD

Just to let you know there's already an AfD here for the article ;) - Sorf^ane 13:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock case

Just thought a discussion here might be useful as well to clarify some things (I dont want to fill up the case page).

1)Editing the same topic as a sock-user does not make a user a sock. 2)Accusing someone of being a sock after 5 edits is not useful, especially when all edits have been helpful so far and you may have scared off a useful contributor.

Ironholds 18:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. If it turns out he is a sock i'll still hold the same opinion; the case you've brought is ridiculous. Ironholds 19:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

He's made 5 edits. Judging him on the strength of those is what's ridiculous. Also, how does "The only edits outside of these two edits are made in regards to Keith deligero, a page whose deletion I proposed." relate; do you think he's stalking you? Ironholds 19:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Then i'd point out the hundreds of articles that this account hasn't followed you too. If you really feel that you're correct i'd advise turning this over to a checkuser request, but with the evidence you've shown I guarantee they'll throw it out. Ironholds 19:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The carriers haven't entered American waters yet. You're accusing them of being enemy carriers on the basis that they have engines, and so do german carriers, ignoring the number of allied ships with engines and ignoring all pointers that leaving dock at the same time as a german fleet does not automatically classify them as enemies. Does that analogy satisfy you? Ironholds 20:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I would like to share my thoughts here as I was approach to do so earlier. I've checked the edits made by the suspect earlier, but strictly speaking, it doesn't display any strong & conclusive evidence to prove his acts of sockpuppetry yet. However, looking at Arbiteroftruth's long history in battling this recalcitrant vandal & in getting his sock accounts blocked successfully on numerous occassions previously, proved he's familiar with ColourWolf's behavourial profile & mode of attack, which to some, with a heavy dose of WP:AGF, may failed to notice or appreciate earlier. Unless CheckUser is used to prove (most unlikely), we can only let time or due diligence proved who was right or wrong later (aka 'Law of Karma') esp in trickier cases like sockpuppetry. Moving forward, I would like to suggest to Arbiteroftruth to update or expand with comprehensive chronological details i.e., likely sock accounts, list of past ANI cases, a specific mention of articles (not just categories) being attacked to date, other useful details etc, on your existing record on ColourWolf's history of attacks as per this example, which may be helpful in proving your case strongly in future (do quote this record page often in future), esp to the skeptics or clueless folks, but also serves as a quick & easy point of reference for yourself & fellow vandal-fighters too. Fyi, I've added him to one of my little bots' scan list after a gentle reminder was given to him earlier. On behalf of SGpedia, I would like to thank Arbiteroftruth for his on-going vigilance & concern shown in protecting our Singapore-related articles so far. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Username

• Thank you for your message Arbiteroftruth. I wonder if I change my name in ROMAN then it will appear in the Roman on Urdu wikipedia too ? is not so ? ............ Samarqandi. --سمرقندی (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Biting an Arabic-named user

Your recent reports on UAA have been directly against the username policy, culminating in your request to block سمرقندی for having a foreign name. Wikipedia welcomes editors from all places in the world.

Enough is enough. Please find something else to do instead of trying to block new users for bad reasons. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. First of all, don't template the regulars. I'm not particularly hurt by it, it's just nonsensical to leave me a message saying "Welcome to Wikipedia".

I am not amused by your "violation of NPA" thing. It's not an attack for me to tell you to take responsibility for your actions on Wikipedia. When you flout a policy, it's not an attack for me to tell you what it is.

And I honestly mean my suggestion -- there are zillions of ways to be helpful on Wikipedia, and you could easily find one instead of perpetuating this issue. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Insight about the misunderstanding

As I re-read the first version of your message, I realize that the misunderstanding might have been bigger than I thought.

I recognize that you've contributed to the encyclopedia, and I welcome you to keep contributing. I also believe that you wouldn't have any particular problem with Arabic people, and a possible explanation is that you may have misread "Contributors are welcome to use usernames that are not spelled using the Latin alphabet" as "Contributors are forbidden to use usernames that are not spelled using the Latin alphabet" or something like that. That would be a small misunderstanding, and still wouldn't have led to the talking past each other that just happened.

The thing I've suddenly realized you may have misunderstood: were you not aware that UAA is for blocking people? That would explain why you think you're only "suggesting" they change their usernames, and why you think you haven't threatened any new users. It would be an understandable mistake, and if that's the case, please do tell me so. There has been some speculation that people on UAA don't understand that it's for block requests; it does say so on the page, but the vague title and the included "bot reports" section may give people the wrong impression. If this is what happened, it tells me that I should work with UAA to try to clarify the purpose of the page and prevent misunderstandings like this in the future.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What should we do about it? Nothing. Your transliteration is interesting, but I really think that one user's name being a transliteration of another's is a non-issue.

By the way, your assessment was basically right: I am often a cranky admin when it comes to usernames. I think the username policy is too often used to make newbies who are "inconvenient" go away. And if I don't take the newbies' side and firmly express my disapproval of cases where the username-blocking process is misused, then not only is a good-faith newbie likely to get blocked and get a terrible impression of Wikipedia, but others get the idea that that kind of block is okay (regardless of the text of WT:U and the pages of discussion that justify it).

When you reported the Arabic name, you stumbled into a hot button for me. I've noticed it's always the Arabic names that get reported. Newbies with, say, Japanese names are totally fine. People trust them. But Arabic names? They make people get uneasy and start asking for username blocks. I may have unfairly maligned your motives by lumping you in with the subtle racism of username reporters as a whole.

Finally, about the misunderstanding of the purpose of UAA. My hint is to think of it exactly like AIV. If you want to warn someone about their username, you don't need UAA (but you should be sure you're warning them about the right thing per WP:U). You only need UAA when it's so much of a problem that they need to be blocked.

I hope this has cleared something up. Happy editing. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I think they are actually the same user. He used to have separate accounts that were سمرقندی on ur.wikipedia.org and Samarqandi on en.wikipedia.org, but now he's using his global account (a perfectly reasonable thing to do). Here's his Urdu userpage, loaded with barnstars: ur:صارف:سمرقندی. On his talk page you can see people addressing him as Samarqandi. So he's not actually a newbie and we're in less danger of scaring him off, but I still think this good editor should have a good experience with the English Wikipedia.

Hopefully in time there will be enough people using their global accounts that users like سمرقندی will be commonplace and people won't worry. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:UAA

Just to say that I've removed SimonGlover Inc. (talk · contribs) - it's not a breach of policy to have a company name as your username per se - generally speaking we wait until the account edits to see if their edits are going to be promotional in nature. In this instance, the account has no edits, deleted or otherwise, so it's a bit harsh to block them at this stage. Thanks! _Gb^T/c 21:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your report to WP:UAA

Thank you for making a report about Gluciani (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Unfortunately, your report has been removed due to the username not violating policy, or not being blatant enough for a block. Please remember you should only post infringements on this page if they are so serious that the user needs to be blocked immediately. Others should be discussed with the user in question first, for example using the {{Uw-username}} template. A request for comment can be filed if the user disagrees that their name is against the username policy, or has continued to edit after you have expressed your concern. Thank you. Is he back? (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbiter, it saddens me that you would report someone's real name as a username violation after all that discussion we had. Yes, you misunderstood the username policy and I accept your explanation, but now it's your job to stop misunderstanding the username policy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And he did all that because he was named G. Luciani, or what? You are treating UAA as your one-stop blocking shop. Please, please, please use UAA for username problems only, and read WP:U carefully if you don't know what a username problem is. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm

Hello, Kiteinthewind. You have new messages at Xenocidic's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It might be best to put some mileage between you and these errant UAA reports before you stand for RFA. Let me know of your thoughts on my talk page. Also, seeking a co-nom would probably be a good idea as well. –xeno (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)