User talk:Rspeer

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

RFV: Wikipedia: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 ^message 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^{Call me Pat!} 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['wikipedia']['en'] = tasks.get(sys.argv[0], '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 ^Write_Read 11:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: UAA_reports

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

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

Reply

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

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, 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)

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)

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 [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)

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 over recent actions

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)

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)

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)

Username question

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)

Huh?

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)

User:Iwirewiki and UAA

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)

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)

User:Davem, the Son of God

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)

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)

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

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

Thanks for your response to User_talk:Cumulus Clouds

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)

Wikiquette alert

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)

The Bugle

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)

Wanted to get your opinion here

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)

UAA

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)

re: promotional pages

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)

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)

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)

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)

Kemeny-Young method

I just wanted to let you know that there's been some action after months of inactivity on Kemeny-Young method. If you're still interested, you may want to keep half an eye on the page.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, MarkusSchulze could probably use a hand at Schulze STV if you're interested. I don't know if you follow multiple-winner election systems, but the page is tagged {{advert}} and Markus is unwilling to remove it for COI reasons. (Actually, I tend to think the page does read like an advertisement at the moment... but at some point it'll get fixed up and someone should remove the tag then.)

CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't know enough about Schulze STV. The last I heard about it was when it was just being discussed on mailing lists, and I'm surprised it has enough independent sources for an article. I'll try to keep a closer watch on Kemeny-Young, though. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Guide

Can I add your ACE guide to the Template:ACE 2008 guides? MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you found it already. Neat.

I was hoping to have more comments filled in before publicizing it, but I suppose others are in about the same state. So if you want to add it, go ahead! rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Your arbcom guide

I do not want a "three-layer cake with frosting" where one of the layers is made of bullshit. Someone should engrave that in marble and enshrine it for the ages. Brilliant. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. I actually find the analogy a bit cheap, because the section called the "three-layer cake" is not one of the most objectionable parts of that decision. That honor probably actually belongs to "adequate framing". But it's hard to make such a vivid image about frames as you can about cake. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Saw your comment about the fivethirtyeight of Wikipedia. (Actually read you say that the other day somewhere but can't find it now.) It's interesting that the voter guides ended up being quite indicative of the course of the elections. Looks like the guides' only collective miss was understating support for Roger Davies. -JayHenry (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense. I haven't added it up recently to see how accurate the meta-guide is, but you wouldn't expect it to be too far off. When Caspian Blue did his analysis, though, it also overstated support for Sam Korn. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the actual expressed preferences, rather than Caspian's analysis. Although Caspian said Sam was a leading contender, half the guides were opposed to him. You could imagine a Nate Silver writing a script to see who tends to vote together, because Wikipedians (like any organization this size) tend to vote the lines of a fairly small number of unlabeled parties and factions. You could measure the weighting of these factions within the community of likely voters, figure out which factions support which candidates, and call most elections. It'd also give something to look for irregularities. Another blip in the aggregate guides is overstating support for both Cool Hand Luke and Jayvdb. I'd posit this is because the guides didn't anticipate the "well-poisoning" in the former and what appears may be some canvassing in the latter. Of course previously unknown information could also arise, which would change what guides predict. Anyway, no real point. Just musing aloud. --JayHenry (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerns?

Hey there! I noticed your two concerns about me in your voter guide were whether or not I can handle the caseload and if I could maintain a pseudonymous identity. First of all, while I would prefer to remain pseudonymous, if my identity were revealed by WR or someone else I wouldn't view it as a serious detriment and I would continue my ArbCom work. I take this position seriously. In that vein, I would not have become a candidate if I did not think I could maintain the level of activity and involvement the committee so desperately needs. Inactivity and drive-by arbitration is one of my biggest complaints about ArbCom, and I vow not to become one of those arbitrators should I be elected. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Candidacy questions / user guide

Hi:

It will come as no surprise to you when I say that I made a particularly poor job of replying to some Arbcom questions. I have had a filthy cold and a high temperature, since Friday last, and it cramped my style somewhat, especially when faced with 250+ questions/sub-questions.

I have completely revisited the whole incivility issue so that my responses now reflect actually and articulately what I believe. The key stuff is here and here.

I would be very grateful if you could find the time to review my responses and ask any specific questions that you feel need further clarification. Thank you in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your illness, and I admire the dedication of ArbCom candidates who think hard about and answer the hundreds of questions they're asked. I need to oppose some viable (and therefore highly qualified) candidates for my vote to matter, and the answers have given me lots of material to scrutinize. So thanks for standing up and answering all the questions -- even when I disagree with some answers, I see it as better than dodging.

Compiling my guide has required a lot of reading, and it's quite possible that in some cases I missed the point. (It sounds like I'll need to re-read Hemlock Martinis's answers, for example.)

Your answer to Heimstern is a great answer about civility... and I don't understand how it makes any sense in the context of your answer to roux. Civility position A3 says that incivility should be "weighed against" an editor's contributions to the project. Maybe you're reading it way differently from me, but to me that sounds like admins, people who edit in highly visible fora, and vested contributors get "free incivility passes" that they get to use once in a while. (It's also, as far as I can tell, the status quo.) That's the part I can't support, but I do want to hear your reply and understand what you meant by it. Thanks, rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC

Sorry about the slow reply. I think the short answer is that I'm likely to be more diplomatic (i.e. carefully written notes rather than templates) with established people in high pressure positions than I am with trouble-makers because I will want them to both continue contributing and mend their ways. However, civility is policy and is therefore non-negotiable. Because of this, it must be applied consistently right across the user base. In practical terms, this means that although the opening overtures to the editor may be different, the result of ignoring them is the same. This is important, not only to prevent newbies from justifiably feeling hard-done-by but also to ensure that a celebrity editor culture doesn't become too institutionalised. (As a side note, I do believe some celebrity editors do already have a disportionate amount of influence and that interferes with determining true concensus. You see it particularly at RfA.) In essence, I suppose the established editor is the present but the newby is the future.

If I am elected and I do not stick to this egalitarian principle, you have a duty to follow me relentlessly, shouting accusations of "Hypocrisy!" and "Duplicity!" from the rooftops. I don't think I will change my spots on this though: social fairness has been important to me for too long. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: I think you and I interpreted A3 differently. I took A1, A2, A3 to refer to when an editor should be approached about incivility: you may see it as meaning when should sanctions be applied. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry to bother you again but I'm a bit puzzled. You've actually already voted "oppose" (on 1 December) based on the incivility ambiguity but have since switched to support in your ACE guide. Did you mean it to be like this? Or are the two simply slightly out of sync? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I lost track and they got out of sync. I've switched my vote now. rspεεr (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Kudos

I really appreciated your questions for the ArbCom candidates. Someone pointed out your question for one of the candidates, and when I read their answer, I immediately switched my vote from support to oppose. We don't need anti-science POV's in the ArbCom (FT2's attitude is sufficient), and it's interesting how your question pulled it out of certain candidates. Oddly, I don't think I've ever crossed paths with you. Thanks again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

unanswered questions

In regards to your recent comment that accompanied the support vote, you might be interested in q&a page sizes. It doesnt excuse the fact I havent answered everything; I've been too busy with the real world and Oversight, but both of those time sinks are now over as of today. I'm trying to answer most of the remainder tonight; if any are not answered before the election is over, I will answer them after the election so that the community at least knows my views going forward - i.e. no surprises. Thanks for your comment. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Question you can probably answer

Per this response of mine to this question, since I don't follow these policy debates too closely, can you answer that question? Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I replied. Where do people get the idea that you should block newbies for the slightest mistake? Is it still hidden somewhere in the username policy? rspεεr (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just read your views on newbies

I like what you have to say. Lots of good ideas in there. How could we give WP:BITE more teeth, I wonder... Lot 49a^talk 05:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That's always good to hear. If you want to help defend newbies, might I suggest you become another sympathetic voice on WP:UAA? Things are going reasonably there at the moment, but there are still overzealous username reporters and overzealous admins placing blocks, and when the two happen to converge, a new user can end up getting bounced from the project just because they didn't understand our sprawling conventions about usernames when they registered. rspεεr (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User: CAWUEgypt

I was just wondering why you removed User:CAWUEgypt with this edit [4], saying " Thanks for leaving a notice on the talk page; you didn't need to tell UAA that you were doing so." I thought such promotional usernames were blocked under WP:USERNAME, CAWUEgypt is obviously connected to the Center for arab west understanding, whose article the user keeps on creating. Should I have given this evidence when I first presented this user to WP:UAA, or would this have better been left to other methods? Thanks, --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Creating and re-creating an article that shouldn't be there is not the kind of thing we like to see from our new users, but it strikes me as strange to look at that behavior and then conclude that the username is the problem. The username is not doing the promotion; it's only tangentially related to the promotion, and you have to expand out the acronym to be able to tell that.

While the user needs an explanation of what content is appropriate on Wikipedia, the conflict of interest policy is much more relevant than the username policy here, and to ask for a username block because it's faster strikes me as policy-shopping. To me, the username issue merits at most a warning.

Now, in this case, you saw at least part of this in the same way as me, because you left that warning. It would defeat the purpose of a warning (and, to me, be excessively harsh) to block the user right afterward. So what's the use of the UAA report? All an admin could reasonably do with it is say "yep, you left a warning" and remove the report. rspεεr (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

But `Accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted, and this is clearly an inappropriate username. Also, the user is unlikely to follow my warning anyways, as they have simply disregarded numerous deletion notices, and recreated their promotional page on their group. While, some of these promotional usernames could end up being productive editors if given the change, this one probably wouldn't. So in this case, I believe a block is justified here. Other cases, like User:Ohelpee, another user I reported (though at that time under a different name) were more accepting of the policies, and thus deserved some leniency. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not at all denying that the user has broken some policies at some point. This may surprise you, but we don't block new users the moment they break a single policy. There are lots of policies and most people have broken some of them at some point. Instead, we try to explain to them how things work and make them into better users.

Looking through the user's contributions, yes they have been self-promotional at times, and yes the username hints that they might be a role account. But the contributions have significantly improved over time. They're adding references and biographical details to people's articles. Do they have an ulterior motive in doing so? I don't know, but I wouldn't just assume it.

I'm sure they might even follow your very reasonable request that they change their name and affirm that a single person is behind the edits, so why not give them a chance to? (By now I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and using the singular they to refer to them.) Why go straight from a warning to a block request in a matter of minutes? They haven't edited since the warning. In fact -- and this is kind of the icing on the cake for why a block would be very silly -- they haven't edited since November.

If they come back and you still want them blocked, please try to make a stronger case for blocking them. The username policy isn't it. You may want the conflict of interest noticeboard. rspεεr (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this case is obviously a blatant example of violation of the username policy. The user has firstly, broken the username policy, and then proceeded to write mostly inappropriate articles, ignoring the numerous warnings that other users were putting on his talk page. A significant majority, if not all of the other articles that the user has worked on have all been related to the group that they are promoting. Just go to Sawsan Gabra Ayoub Khalil, Cornelis Hulsman, Center for Intercultural Dialogue and Translation, Arab-West Report, and other articles and search for CAWU or Center for Arab Western Understanding. All of their edits are connected to this group in some way, and it is pretty clear what their intentions are. While I concur that some dialogue with the user is desirable in some cases at WP:UAA, this one is not one of them. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Be careful before you accuse a user of things, Patar. The user has only received two warnings, and ignored neither of them.

The first warning was that the user should stop signing articles. They did.

The second warning came from you, to change their username. I maintain that you enforced the username policy correctly by leaving this warning, so I'm not sure why you are being so insistent that you didn't. The user has not done anything since this warning. In fact, the user has not done anything since November 15, 2008.

The user created some articles that got speedy deleted. This is not a blockable offense. They also made some edits to other articles which stuck, because the edits were helpful. I don't see anything being ignored here.

This is not a user that needs to be blocked. This is a good-faith user, and yet you are policy-shopping in an attempt to block them. The user is probably not coming back anyway, but if they did, I would welcome their helpful contributions and talk to them about their potential COI. I am declining your block request. Please let it drop now. rspεεr (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so there were only two warnings. Touché on that one. The first was the signing one, and the second about removing {{hangon}} notices (both can be seen here. However, the other notifications were about his articles which had been either speedily deleted or deleted at AFD. I know that creating speedily deleted articles is not a blockable offense in itself. However, the user's violation of the username policy, compounded with their creation of several self-promoting articles (which were the ones speedily-deleted) despite previous notices on our notability policies, leads to a justification of a block for this user, as it is entirely a self-promotional front for the CAWU. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The second warning you're talking about doesn't even exist. You're misreading the template. That's some explanatory text about how you can add a hangon notice (why would a newbie want to remove one?). Your chronology also doesn't match what I see in their contributions.

It comes down to this. The user signed their articles. They got a warning about it. They stopped. They created bad articles. They got notices about them. They stopped. Seriously, the user fixed their actions in basically every way they were asked to, and then if you weren't happy with that they stopped editing anyway. I bet they would even fix their username if they were around to see your warning. Anyway, there are actual vandals out there causing actual disruption now, so there's no purpose in fixating on someone who acted noobish and self-promotional a month and a half ago and then stopped. rspεεr (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I've wasted too much time arguing about something that stopped being a problem two months ago, losing sight of what Wikipedia's goal is: to build an encyclopedia. While some of my points would've had merit while the user was still active, any action now is unnecessary unless the said user returns. Now my best course of action is to go over the articles that the user created, and edit them/nominate them for deletion, as befitting Wikipedia policy. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Responding to UAA bot reports

I don't use the templates for the bot; I use the templates for other editors who may wish to investigate the situation. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

True, but I feel it saves people time, knowing that the report is already being dealt with. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Long usernames

Hi Rspeer,

I saw that you reverted my boldly added long username (+25 chars) blacklist rule. I was doubting weather such a rule was appropriate myself, but I also noticed that a lot of bad long usernames do slip by. When I checked the contributions of the bot, I noticed that it caught on this rule: user:F uck billcj the big fat f f u u c c kk, User:SUPERSUPERSUPERSUPERSUPER, user:Betacommand is genderqueer, user:Acalamari would like to see Natalie Erin's "water slide", and User:DoomsayParodySpoofMovie2009. That it 5 true positives in about 5 hours. For me that means the rule is working quite well. I'm all too aware that having more than 25 characters in one's username is not a problem in itself, but if you se that these usernames get caught because of it, it might be a good idea to keep it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We really did have problems with the 40+ rule, and 25+ is even worse. The problem is that these names are reported to UAA, and a primary purpose of UAA is to place username blocks; if long names show up routinely there, people get the idea that names can be blocked just for being long. Myself, I'm not particularly worried about our username patrollers letting bad names slip through the cracks, considering that they seem to find them all and some perfectly fine names as well.

"SUPERSUPERSUPERSUPERSUPER" isn't even a username violation of any sort, by the way. rspεεr (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Though the long usernames are not a violation, the catching of them by NamewatcherBot could have its uses. Your name has been mentioned in the discussion at WT:UAA#suggested blacklist addition, and it would be good to have your views there. There are COI bots and spambots that complain about all kinds of innocent things, but nobody (in my opinion) thinks that this is going to cause policy to be misunderstood. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ping

User talk:CRGreathouse#Have you ever considered adminship?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, the nomination is up. Hope my statement's OK. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Building

As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Batshit insane"

Hello. I did not appreciate your using this expression in discussing my criteria for potential adminstrators, and think it is perilously close to being a personal attack. I would be gratified if you would withdraw it. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing, because I indeed misunderstood your point. If you had been saying that 13,500 edits wasn't enough, I would have continued to criticize your criteria -- and I think criteria that are totally detached from reality, like most edit-counting is, need to be described as such without the editor who suggests them taking it personally. But again, I misunderstood, so there's no need for that description. rspεεr (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, your gesture is appreciated. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA

rspεεr, I'd like to thank you for nominating me and helping me through the RfA process. I can't believe that was only a week… it felt like a month.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Cowboy Hats

I am going to make changes to the Cowboy hat page see:text

-oo0(GoldTrader)0oo- (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your were in the Cowboy edits

Thanks see. Talk:Cowboy_hat

RfA thanks

Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

the saga continues

See WT:U. There's a thread there questioning why we shouldn't block confusing usernames on sight. Thought you'd want to know. Mangojuice^talk 12:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A few words on disagreement

		The Original Barnstar
		Even though I regularly find myself disagreeing with your opinions, I believe it to be the constructive type of disagreement. Content and policy is best formed when reasonable people disagree reasonably. Only through a variety of differing and even contrary opinions can reasonable people find the best solution. This barnstar is for always being reasonable when you disagree. Chillum 01:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rspeer. You have new messages at Patton123's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Patton^t/c 14:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my faith

...in the reading ability of humankind. I don't expect everyone to like everything I write, but I'd rather not be confused with the kind of cartoon caricature that seems to be evolving of its own accord on my RfA. Before this interesting process began, I used to think I could get a point across - not necessarily convince anyone, but at least get them to understand my position. I am not so sure now. I'm especially confused about how my admittedly inept stab at self-deprecating human can sound "sarcastic", although I suppose that is grimly self-fulfilling (that I can't even admit to imperfection without sounding even more arrogant demonstrates just how correct the self-deprecation was). --Teratornis (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I might comment about your quote:

• "I followed the links provided by opposers, and saw nothing but reasonable comments."

First, thank you; and second, it seems to me you have identified the problem. Some people don't like reasonable comments. For example a theme with some of the participants seems to be that they can't find anything factually wrong with what I wrote, they just don't like the way I wrote it. Given that Style over substance is a fallacy, this amounts to a selective rejection of reason (which is how the vast majority of people think, applying reason when it suits them, and thinking in other ways when it doesn't). I understand the need for administrators to have some political finesse, for example when doing things that some users aren't going to like. My record as a non-admin on the Help desk has consistently been to look for the workable compromise when there is one, for example transwiki'ing someone's article instead of just obliterating it. I think if a new user has accepted our invitation to just start editing away, without any requirement to read our several thousand pages of instructions first, then we owe them some help with transwiki'ing if they violate one of our numerous unguessable policies or guidelines. --Teratornis (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

re:User:Rizaisdabestindawholewideworld UAA report

Hi, just a quick question. I was under the impression that excessively long or confusing usernames names were against policy, is this not the case anymore? - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 03:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I was just going by what I saw in the block logs, and I agree, some admins likely are still enforcing it, after re-reading WP:U I couldn't find a reference to confusing names anywhere. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 14:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN

Please don't remove other people's comments from discussion pages. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You didn't make a comment. You posted a user warning template on AN, which makes no sense. What were you trying to say? rspεεr (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That the person making the comment is a sock puppet with a conflict of interest concerning the cleaning up of Long Term Abuse pages. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. (Sorry, but the template was a very unclear way of saying that.) Care to explain more? rspεεr (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The person making the comment is the sockpuppet (and now blocked) of a former blocked editor. He was more than happy to have Long Term Abuse pages removed, thus a conflict of interest. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion - request

Rspeer,

Thanks for giving a third opinion at Talk:Kelpers#Third_Opinion_response. I assume you came to the dispute via WP:Third opinion. If so, I'd be grateful if you could follow the directions there and remove a listed dispute that you are going to offer an opinion for before you provide that opinion. I nearly read all of the arguments before fortunately scrolling down and seeing your response was there already! Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC for Corp Usernames

I have created an RfC for a proposed change to the username policy in regards to corporate names. I invite your input. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I made a new proposal Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy/Blatant_Promotion_RfC#Proposal_5_--_Reflect_consensus_in_twinkle_and_templates.

Also I'm not sure what to do with your proposal. It had some support and little opposition, however I'm not sure it reflects consensus, since many people expressed opposite sentiments on proposal 1 comments, and the proposal to completely ban explicit corporate names did carry, which seems incompatible. I'll let you decide what to do there. Gigs (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

UAA

re this, yeah, I blocked those two as socks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, I'm looking to learn more about the UAA function, since I only started using it recently. I know that you removed an addition of mine, which I re-added because your explanation didn't make a lot of sense to me. Perhaps you can clarify here. I've been under the impression that group names are to be blocked, since that's what the policy says. I think I may have convinced the individual to get a new username, but the policy doesn't say "will be blocked unless the editors agree to change his or her username," does it? :-) Really, though, is that the standard operating procedure? If so, the wording of the policy ought to be updated. Let me know if there's something I missed since, like I said, I'm new to the UAA procedure and I'm curious to find out more. Cheers! --King of the Arverni (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to deal with COI issues as COI issues rather than as username issues, given the choice. In addition to the fact that I didn't find "might be a group name" to be a compelling enough reason to apply a username block, I found that the COI approach appears to be working, so there's really no need for a username block.

There are many situations that could fall under either the username policy or the COI policy, and deciding which policy to apply and how is often a judgement call. I prefer not to block people when it's not necessary. rspεεr (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Makes some sense to me. I'm still interested in the idea of adding that sort of caveat to the SPAMNAME policy (though, for all I know, that may have already been tried before). I know that you didn't block the username in question, but you didn't oppose it a second time, either. Was it just a question of picking your battles, or did you think the reason more compelling the second time around? --King of the Arverni (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's simpler than that -- I wasn't there to see it the second time around. But yes, I probably would have "picked my battles", as you say -- particularly because a revert war on UAA would be one of the lamest battles ever. :P rspεεr (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

username blocks and policys

Hello,
Username policy says pretty clearly that no username is confusing enough to require an instant block without prior discussion. Username policy makes no mention of not using IP addresses as usernames. I was blocked instantly, permanently, for having a username that 'resembled an IP address'. It took several appeals with the unblock template to get a policy based reason for this - some people might be confused by edit summaries.
Please, could you have a look at the policy and add the needed lines? And please could you continue your work of making admins realise just how horrible it is for editors to be caught up in a username block. "We've blocked you. Policy says we should have discussed it with you before blocking, but we didn't. Policy doesn't mention the reason we've given you for blocking your name. Your name doesn't appear to be covered by the policy. And when you ask us to add a simple line to the policy to make it clear we'll tell you you're asking in the wrong place, even though you're unable to ask anywhere else. And, even though you're a new editor, and you're asking politely and calmly for more information about our block (which doesn't, as far as you can see, conform to any policy) we'll tell you that you're abusing the block template and could be blocked for that too." I dunno. It kind of sucked. See my userpage, and the linked user page for full historys.) 87.113.86.207 (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

UAA header/edit notice

Heya, I revised the header at UAA today to bring it in-line with the redraft of policy. Even though much of the old header format and wording was carried over, to me it now seems clearer. I welcome any insight you may have. Also, one thing that I carried over from the previous version that bothers me is the differentiation between an 'ordinary' and 'obvious' violations of policy. It seems to me that what's obvious and ordinary will be unclear to some. No examples are given at UAA or in the policy itself. I wonder what could be done to clarify what requires immediate intervention by admins, and thus a report at UAA, and what doesn't. One thought of mine is to add a module to the new admin school on username policy, with examples of common scenarios and recommended actions. This would not only benefit admins, but editors active in UAA, just as the NAS module on rollback has benefited the wider community as a whole. Thoughts? Nja²⁴⁷ 11:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

IP addresses

Sorry, but not one admin mentioned the (talk), everysingle one of them mention IP address. I can't suggest you try creating accounts with just dotted quads and seeing them get blocked, because that's probably against some rule, (Disruption to prove a point?) even if that test-sock only makes good positive edits and is very polite once blocked. But, if you decide it's not un-ethical to do so I recommend you try it and see how many people will block for a dotted quad without a (talk), and how many admins will refuse an unblock. Try a dotted quad with the (talk) and see how many admins suggest "you can keep the name, just remove the (talk) part". And, really, (this is a minor wiki-lawyering point) including the (talk) doesn't mimic the software, because you end up with "xx.xx.xx.xx (talk) (talk)". It just seems odd that some people insist on having "email addresses", but refuse to include "email and IP addresses", even though we have admins who will issue an instant indef block for dotted quads, and admins who'll refuse to unblock. Having written all this screed I'll finish by agreeing with you - I can see how general principles (Don't be confusing) is better than trying to nail specifics (don't be confusing by doing X,Y,Z). But I will add that you'll need admins who can explain why a username is confusing. Kind Regards. Hurr87.113.86.207durr (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

not disruptive

I brought the subject on ANI. Except for me, there was 100% consensus for not blocking and to bring it to UAA.

I then brought it to UAA, like I was told to. At UAA, the report was removed citing that the accounts were old. I put it back at UAA and an administrator did the same thing, removing it citing that the accounts were old.

There is then 100% consensus that old name are not blocked. This is not disruptive unless you say that all the other administrators who agreed are all disruptive.

I now do not seek that these accounts be blocked. This is not disruption. I then wrote down what all the other administrators were saying so this is not disruption. By writing it, it becomes known to all. Starting from this second, it IS disruptive if someone blocks names that are old and questionable. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand it now. A stale account is inactive, therefore, it shouldn't be blocked. However, if the name was inappropriate now, it was inappropriate before. It's just the user was sneaky enough. Policy should be written out. That's why Wikipedia is so strange. When someone wants to write the policy out, it gets opposition. Yet, everyone agrees on the secret policy.

Now that I know one of the secret policies, I suppose I am in the know. Thank you for sort of explaining it. Acme Plumbing (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Special Barnstar
		You clearly have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. I greatly appreciate what you are giving to Wikipedia, and I wish more people would bring the level of sincerity and seriousness that you are offering us on a daily basis. Peace be with you. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

   GameShowKid – talk – evidence   02:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Calm down

I obviously made a mistake too. Do you really think I'd purposefully misinterpret things like that? Nja²⁴⁷ 10:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think you would have purposefully done that. I shouldn't have responded in a way that implied you did. But if I can turn this around: why, may I ask, are you questioning the motives of Seicer and me? Do you think we have motives besides stopping newbies from being unnecessarily blocked? rspεεr (talk) 10:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't question either of your motives, but I do wonder why if someone was bored and concerned they avoided discussing the issue with me directly , particularly as none of his examples were after our discussion where I apologised and have been careful to do my best. Anyhow I plan to stay away from UAA for a while at this point as I certainly don't feel as though my contributions are valued there. There are admins who clear the queue there with ridiculous blocks of names that were non-blatant, yet I'm the biggest asshole of all apparently. Thus, I'll move on to more pressing areas. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you acknowledged on your AN post that I too was mistaken and never meant to accuse Seicer of starting the poll itself. I have refactored my comments to take that into account, and being that no one else replied since then it stands to reason you're the only one who read my mistake. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wheelwar

I blocked Bottracker for "Disruptive editing: refusal to discuss copyright issues and extreme personal attacks possibly driving another editor away" and you unblock him saying that "The two admins who blocked you were completely unjustified in doing so."? Exactly why did you decide to do this without having the courtesy of discussing it with me and also insulting me in this way? How was I completely unjustified? And why did you suggest I blocked him because of his username, which is what you've said. Dougweller (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I should add you've more or less told him he's done nothing wrong. Do you still think that's the case? The 'bot' bit is a red herring, please comment on his behavior, not the username thing. I'm off to bed now before I fall asleep at the keyboard, I was up far too early this morning. Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A question

Were you here when there was no UAA, and do you think it was less bitey back then because of that? -- Mentifisto 00:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I remember when there was no noticeboard. Then there was RFCN which helped considerably, but as a side effected resulted in a backlog of clear cut cases being reported. Then UAA came about and I think the sorting has gone fairly well since then. RFCN is only used occasionally as should be, the policy is not that hard to interpret, and most cases are handled through UAA. I think any problem with biteyness is more a result of individual administrative discretion, not a problem with the process, noticeboards or the policy.

I have noticed some contention regarding what the content of the username policy should be, but I think consensus has settled that. Regarding biteyness, I think that the templates of undergone numerous passes to ensure they explain that they are welcome back under a more appropriate username. Chillum 00:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking anyone I post at UAA is invariably someone trying to use this place as a free advertisement billboard. Anyone I post usually deserves deletion. HalfShadow 00:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question! I was here when there was no UAA, and even no RFC/N, but it was because the job was being done entirely by a handful of admins. The most active one -- I should really remember his name but I don't -- was basically running an unapproved semi-automated block-bot; it would basically block people based on criteria like the current UAA bots use to report people, and to be extra unhelpful it would leave the block message of "user...". Eventually, that guy had so many bad blocks catch up with him that he resigned.

That's probably a good indication that a process like UAA has its place, but what happens there can make all the difference.

In April 2008, incidentally, I wrote a summary of username policy and UAA-related changes from my point of view, going back to the creation of UAA. One take-away message from that is: UAA has gotten way, way, way better since 2007. We were probably losing many more newbies to it then than we are now. But you can still find newbies who have clearly had a crappy Wikipedia experience through not much fault of their own, especially if you look off Wikipedia, where they're blogging about how intolerant WP is. Now, when our supply of new users is dwindling for whatever reason, we have to try to do better. rspεεr (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW: I just checked my facts, and they were kinda wrong. The person running the block-bot was Curps. And although he left Wikipedia shortly after he stopped running his bot, I don't think he ever had his adminship removed. In fact, when it was revealed publicly that he was running a semi-automated admin-bot which blocked people and left the summary of "user...", what he got was an outpouring of support. Sometimes I can't make any sense of the way Wikipedia worked three years ago. rspεεr (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Bottracker

Per the conversation on WP:AN, can I ask why you believe the copyright problem accusations were false? I remember looking at this user's uploads at the time and certainly many of the images were lifted from other websites - i.e. File:Rhian3.jpg was copied from the artist's MTV bio page!. Given that many of the uploads were clearly copyvios, and most of the images were of professional quality, the obvious indication would be that they all were. Black Kite 20:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Because I hadn't done that much sleuthing. What I had seen were the images of Ghanaian food which could plausibly have been taken by Bottracker. rspεεr (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the food and clothing ones are more dubious, but I remember finding two of them on different user's Flickr pages, suggesting that the user had trawled the web for suitable images. The fact that none of the images had any metadata, and were quite small and randomly sized also led to the conclusion that they were copyvios. Having said that, I think your new unblock message is a good compromise. Regards, Black Kite 23:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Name blocks

The Cusata thing was a mistake; don't know how it happened, but I've reversed it and left a COI message instead. The "Smug" name was an s.p.a. whose only purpose was to publicize the movie Smuggler so to me a spamusername block was appropriate. I appreciate the thought you put into this process. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: I'd like to unblock User:Andi 3ö

I have replied to your query at my talk page. CIreland (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for unblocking me...seems you forgot to fix the template on my page accordingly. Thanx, Andi 3ö (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please undo your deletion

When you made this edit you deleted comments by another user. Please revert your edit and then make your comments again, this time without blanking the other editor's comments. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's restored now. I have no idea why it didn't give me an edit conflict. rspεεr (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Irbisgreif (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Account Advice

Thank you showing mercy on a newbie like me to the Wiki world. I really appreciate it! Question: I followed some advice to start a new account with a new user name and now a different person told me that it would be better to keep the original account. What is the correct thing to do? DonnaKP 03:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAT1932CU (talk • contribs)

Question about your decline of the User:Dskfgjfdskfkg report at UAA

Hello. I would like to know why you labeled that report as "clearly invalid." I probably should have worded the report in a different way, but I still believe that the username in question was blatantly disruptive for the following two reasons: (1) it consisted of a nonsense string of characters that can be quite annoying to look at, and (2) the user in question has a vandalism-only contribution history. Although I agree that a confusing username that lacks a contribution history wouldn't be considered a blatant violation of the username policy, I have seen several confusing usernames that were indefinitely blocked and marked as violations of username policy after they were used to make a few vandalism edits (and such users weren't even given final warnings). SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Upon first glance I determined this account should be blocked and have done so. Chillum 04:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

SoCalSuperEagle, when are you finding these frequent examples of people blocking vandals for "confusing usernames" instead of vandalism? Are these examples from a year or more ago? I would hope that's not particularly common anymore. The username policy is quite clear that "confusing username" is not a reason to block someone. Besides that, common sense says you should care much more about the vandalism than whether you can spell their username off the top of your head.

Chillum correctly blocked the user as a "vandalism-only account". Thank you for that. SoCalSuperEagle, in the future, report vandalism to WP:AIV instead of WP:UAA, and I admit I could have been more helpful by moving the report there myself. rspεεr (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Usernames

(replying to User talk:Closedmouth/Archive 14#Block review of User:Lolpwndurass) Hey, sorry for not getting back to you before this, I've had an insane couple of weeks IRL and Wikipedia's consequently been very low on my list of priorities. Anyway, on the issue at hand, I still feel that each of the blocks you've mentioned were and are legitimate blocks, although I suppose some of the details could have been different. I don't know why you think "Lolpwndurass" isn't an obvious instablock, it seems fairly blatant to me, but feel free to convince me otherwise. "General Secretary of the Soviet Union" was blocked as a misleading and confusing name; probably a slight overreaction, but he went on to create GSSU (talk · contribs) so I guess that's a moot point. I don't know why I hard blocked "Spamolotzzzz", seems kinda harsh in retrospect, but I would still probably block that as a disruptive username. Erm, well, anyway, it's getting late and I can't think what else to write. Have fun ripping me a new asshole. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Dear Rspeer, I took your class at ESP (Spark!) last spring, and I wanted to thank you. You got me involved in Wikipedia, allowing me to be bold, welcome new users, learn WikiMarkup, and patrol new pages. Most importantly, I learned about the processes and notice boards, such as AfD, the Village Pump, and RfA; that make Wikipedia run. Your class was very helpful, and I encourage you to teach it again, in the hopes of creating more productive editors. (Feel free to respond on my talk page.) Gosox5555 (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You very much

Thank you very much for “fighting” for me I greatly appreciate it. I read the discussion from the link you sent me it seemed like the editor Dougweller was still bent on claiming that my account should remainded blocked because of copyright violations. I have a question for you did they tell you who “owned” the pictures I uploaded? Because if they claim they weren’t mine they had to be someones right? As I read the discussions between you. I had just one that wasn't mine and I marked it as that ALL the rest were my own The one that wasn't mine was not from MTV as the editor above claimed. It was from the artists website and THEY GAVE FULL PERMISION for it to be used as long as they got credit and I marked it as such. I do not belive for a split second that my indefinite block was based on these so called copyright violations. It all started when an editor Polly asked Dougweller to block be clamming that MY pictures were not mine and he didn’t want me to have the "opportunity to download more picture". Then Polly came back claiming I had left some “aggressive comments on another editors page User:Daisy1213" this same editor had been sending me rude messages but that wasn’t considered. Daisy also left a message on her talk page telling people if they don’t like her edits they should take it up with Dougweller. How ironic . The message Polly left Dougweller is right here on his talk page[[5]]. I saw over and over again that Dougweller did not like that you said an apology should be issued to me. I guess that would be admitting that he is wrong and what he did was in fact cowardly. He has had a long list of unjustified blocks, I was just one of them. Once again I thank you for fighting for me, but I am disgusted with the admistrator power abuse on Wikipedia and people like Dougweller make me not want to be a part of wikipedia any longer. Take care Bottracker (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Alert

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Desiphral/Archive

You raised concern about this user in the past. What do you think can be done about this matter? Triplestop x3 02:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your UAA claims

At the IMatthew RfA, you either made problematic claims about UAA or claims that show a lack of understanding our policies.

1. "Don't fight religious battles on UAA. Ever." - It is clear IMatthew stated that the contribs would be needed to see if this user name was going around and existing only as an attack name. This is very important and something that is checked, as the two matter. UAA makes this 100% clear - "Any block issued as a result of a user's behaviour may take their username into account, if it is part of the problem". Thus, your statement above goes against UAA standards.

2. "Take it quickly off of UAA instead of drawing unnecessary attention to the identity of someone under 13. Talk to the user privately, with the goal of getting the username changed." Patently false. We do not know they are underage. This could be a year that is used as a graduation date, as many people do just this. As such, you would need to discuss with the individual directly and point out the naming policy in such a situation. It might also require discussions with oversiters and the rest if it is a child. However, you are putting forth an assumption that cannot be made, and is a blanket statement that could damage someone.

3. "A vandal? There is no reason to assume bad faith because someone repeats letters in their name. IMatthew is recommending the awful practice of username-blocking people who don't violate the username policy because they might be vandals... instead of simply vandalism-blocking people who vandalize." See above of the quote from UAA. It is very clear about this issue, which contradicts your statement.

4. "Wikimedia is a global project with global usernames. Putting someone's name on UAA just because it's in Thai is unkind and unhelpful. Take that report off unless the reporter has believably said that the name is offensive/disruptive in Thai." A reporter cannot be deemed as a trusted individual, hence why you would talk to an admin with language skills. Furthermore, this makes it clear that users with non-Latin based characters in their name should be recommended not to use such names on English wiki, as many people have computers that cannot read them. I, being one of those people, have had lots of problems trying to respond to people with foreign characters in their name. This is something UAA deals with.

As such, I think your answers show a lack of insight in UAA and show an immediate demand for a response that is problematic. I hope that you do not follow in your own claims, especially with your refusal to discuss matters before acting in any way. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a possible resolution here is that RSpeer and IMatthew read the question differently; the question was "What administrative actions do you take", not "Do you issue a username block as a result of this UAA report". As far as I can tell, IMatthew gave very similar answers to what I would have said, although I would have been a little wordier, as follows:

1. Western nations are increasingly secular over time; non-Western nations are, in general, not. "God does not exist" is a statement I don't personally have a problem with, but Asians, Africans and South Americans often perceive the statement as racist, whether it is or not ... that is, they're hearing "Just about everyone in Asia, Africa and South America is delusional, ignorant or deceitful." I applaud IMatthew for picking up on that; I would also definitely look at the contribs and, depending on what I see, I might block them myself, or report them at AIV or COIN. OTOH, I also agree with RSpeer that UAA is not the place to make these kinds of judgments.

2. This is the first time I've ever heard someone recommend removing something from UAA on the theory that it would be dangerous to leave it up there, but I'll trust RSpeer if he says that happens. My instinct would be to leave reports up on UAA until consensus is reached on how to handle them. IMatthew didn't recommend a block but did think there was an issue to be dealt with, which I thought was exactly the right answer.

3. IMatthew said that repeating characters in the username was a clue that the person might be a vandal. Meaning, check the contribs, and report them to AIV or block them if they're a vandal. Seems like the right answer to me. But I understand RSpeer was reading the question differently.

4. WP:U says, "To avoid confusion and aid navigation, users with such usernames are encouraged to use Latin characters in their signature." I.e., we recommend against it, but it's not blockable. I thought IMatthew's answer was great; how can you know if it squares with our username policy if you can't read it? Don't respond to it, let someone who can read it respond to it. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Just some more reason why Rspeer's rationales are problematic.

1. As an admin, he would be expected to look into the contribs of the name regardless, as the UAA process makes it clear that user names are to be checked along with their history. An admin who does not do such is acting irresponsibly. He did not say that he wouldn't remove it if there was no history of problems. However, there is no way to say to blatantly remove something from UAA, as you shouldn't really blatantly remove -anything- from UAA without looking first.

2. By removing it quickly like that would be to suggest that there was proof that this was a child. That would be inappropriate and you are supposed to deal with things quietly. Always check first and never make assumptions. Contribs, user pages, etc, should always be checked in addition to direct questioning. If it is a child, then they should be told how to create a new name to protect themselves. But to assume right off it is one would be inappropriate.

3. As I said for one, UAA always requires to check the contribs, so it is never the right answer to just remove things. Rspeer was very wrong in this, which would mean that he may remove many names from UAA that are vandals and these are not caught. This would show UAA failing in its purpose.

4. He seems to assume that the name is acceptable. This is never the case. An admin should never assume, especially with UAA. That is why I feel strong about his initial claims representing a possibly problematic interpretation of UAA, and that it should probably be checked to ensure that these problems that I show could come up are not. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, I disagree with you entirely. A UAA report that is not based on the username policy creates no obligation for admins to hunt down what else the new user is "doing wrong". And none of these hypothetical reports are based on the username policy (except for the religious minefield of deeming #1 "offensive").

I have seen, too many times, some exceedingly minor "problems" with usernames used to justify hounding new users and jumping on whatever other minor missteps they may make. The UAA process gives people a defense of assuming bad faith and biting newbies. I will never stand for it.

When you say things like "blatantly remove something from UAA", you make it sound like it is UAA that needs to be protected and not users. UAA is an idiosyncratic process with its good and bad uses. Users are the future of our encyclopedia. Anyone who puts the bad uses of UAA -- you know, the ones that aren't in the username policy -- over the well-being of users, or even defers to the people who do, is not somebody I want to become an admin. rspεεr (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"for admins to hunt down what else the new user is "doing wrong"." That is so unbelievably wrong. You are required to check the contribs in the reports. That is standard procedure. If you are unwilling to even glance at them, maybe you should find a new place to work in. Rspeer, I have no confidence in your ability as an admin, let alone work in UAA. I talk to a lot of people who work in UAA and I deal with them often. I am sure they will feel the same way. Your statements go against multiple policy and I fear for those who you deal with as there is an obvious gap that can only possibly damage this encyclopedia. If you are going to state the above and then push the issue upon others, that can only be a hazard to the process as a whole. I am disgusted by your response. I suggest you strike your claim immediately and admit the extreme wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, for your information, I already proved that "not based on the username policy" is wrong when I clearly demonstrated that the foreign language name -was- in the username policy. The fact that you would then suggest that the questions didn't deal with them suggests that you don't -know- the username policy. This is something extremely troublesome for someone who wishes to work there. I hope that you will acknowledge the extreme problem in making such a blatantly wrong mistake. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

At some point you're going to have to back down and admit you're dead wrong on this one. Of course I know the username policy, and it says that:

Non-latin characters are never a reason to block.

UAA is for reporting names that there would be a reason to block.

When someone has non-Latin characters in their name, you may want to ask them nicely to make a signature that is more readable. rspεεr (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

More detailed responses on why I stand by these views:

1. I'm sorry, but no, you may not go fishing for a reason to block someone because of religious positions they express in their username. You may not do this to JesusSaves, or PraiseBeUntoAllah, or HareHareKrishnaKrishna, or GodDoesNotExist. This is particularly true because I know that the only ones to actually get this kind of scrutiny would be the ones who are distrusted minorities in English-speaking countries -- that is, Muslims and atheists. Now, if a user is disrupting something with religious trolling, then report that to an appropriate noticeboard. The fact that it's on UAA, though, shows that someone reported the user solely because they didn't like their name.
2. You're twisting my reasoning here. The only reason someone would report MikeArmstrong1997 to UAA is if they believed the user was under 13. You're certainly allowed to follow up on that belief, but I still believe that a one-on-one discussion is much more appropriate than a "HEY LOOK AT THE TWELVE-YEAR-OLD" argument on UAA.
3. IMatthew's response suggested that a user who repeated letters, despite that this is not a violation of the username policy, should get extra scrutiny from UAA because they might vandalize in the future. This manages to be a non-sequitur and assume bad faith at the same time, and is not the kind of reasoning I would like to see from an admin.
4. Likewise, just because you can't read someone's username, you shouldn't assume it says something awful. Now, if the UAA reporter tells you it says something awful, you should of course follow up on that -- maybe using Google Translate to verify. But if they don't, then it's the standard "oh noes a foreigner!" reflex that needs to be driven off of UAA with fire. Are you aware that, in the past, people have been blocked out of process solely for having foreign names? rspεεr (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)