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

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Just FYI

... what I found on AIV: User talk:Rspeer drinks the haterade (now indefblocked). Sandstein 21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Saskatchewan

Sorry, I know it's a drag, but could you have another look at the edit warring (see WP:ANI - [1]). The 70.73.4.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 70.64.4.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) feud is still going on, worsening even, despite the many warnings and respective blocks. I think Doongarra (talk · contribs) may not be an independent contributor: very similar editing habits to 70.73.4.197, such as unexplained reverts and "revert vandal", mostly applied to 70.64.4.74 edits. Tearlach 01:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, 70.73.4.197 is at it again; see his recent edits to Brad Wall and Saskatchewan Liberal Party. --Hiddekel 18:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh man. I have trouble keeping track of which 70.* is which. But I'll watch their talk pages and block them if it's necessary again. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but they're at it yet again - this time it's 70.64.13.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vs 68.146.248.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Are there any long-term options to stop this? It's clearly the same user(s) turning up under various IP sockpuppets, and I think this year-long edit warring is a form of two-handed trolling rather than any genuine attempt to improve Saskatchewan articles. Tearlach 03:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Main page error

IMO you are online. Please see error (not exactly an error though). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this has already been fixed the easier way (by making the DYK link point to the current article title, Ashoka the Great). I don't see a reason to rush this move through - just get consensus for it on the talk page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Game

I wanted to solicit an opinion of an admin, and given that you were involved in the article until it's demise, thought you might be a good choice. Do you feel as if The Game (game, meme, memory game, or whatever it's parenthetical title would be), in the state that it was most frequently in (that is, a short article almost entirely based from the newspaper article) would meet Attribution ("This page in a nutshell: All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.") and Notability ("A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable.") with both those quotes taken directly from the first two paragraphs of their respective pages? Or is there a more serious problem with the newspaper article? (note: I prefer to do conversation on one talk page so the conversation thread is easy to follow, if you don't mind) Darquis 01:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The rule of thumb for inclusion right now is "multiple published sources", so the single newspaper article wouldn't be enough. Although I think that Wikipedia would benefit from having an article on The Game, I respect the community's decision to delete it according to the inclusion criteria. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I was afraid that was the case. It seems like a lot of folks have given up on it being in anyway, judging by the last AFD. Thanks! Darquis 09:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to commend you for an excellent, excellent post on RfA talk. I'm amazed to see some editors defending the project count rationale after you explained its drawbacks so clearly. Dekimasuよ! 06:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Shotaro "Macky" Makisumi

Ooops. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. ... discospinster _talk 11:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz's RFA

Hey Rspeer. Thanks for supporting my unsuccessful RFA this week under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 15:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Protest

For the record I openly protest against your actions for claiming I am abusing Wiki as doing childish, lame games like cloning or acting like someone and being disrespectful to legendary developers who shaped the IT industry as we know. There is no chance any professional developer would play cloning or self promotion games on an online service.

I would revoke my account as a protest but it seems Wiki doesn't allow it. Ilgaz 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's established that the "legendary developer" is User:Mewse, whose contributions you seem to admire a lot even though he is "playing self-promotion games". Also, you are allowed to leave anytime you want to. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Graphic Designer's Barnstar

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		I first saw this image quite a while ago on the Condorcet method page and it was really helpful in explaining what should be seen as the simple system it is, through the use of the image as a comparison between many different voting systems. You capture the elegant superiority of Condorcet voting from a Neutral Point of View. For services to Condorcet, I salute you. Grumpyyoungman01 12:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the support for the image. I'd like to clarify one thing, though -- it's not meant to solely illustrate Condorcet voting. The same image is used in many different voting system articles. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I saw it on all of the other voting article pages as well and it was the comparison in particular that was so helpful. I haven't given out a barnstar before, which may go some way to explaining the confusing mess this one became. I have now reflected my intention in awarding the thing by editing the text once again. Of course I am completely biased towards Condorcet, which is the other motive. Although it is hard to conceive an instance of, if the the image had shown another voting system to be superior to Condorcet, no barnstar would have been awarded ;-) . -- Grumpyyoungman01 07:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Favorite betrayal criterion

Please support this nomination for deletion. Yellowbeard 15:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user 64.229.92.18

As an Administrator can you tell me if this anonymous user ever signed up under a real User Name or is this the only contribution this person ever did as that pertaining to Street Light Interference? Apparently they are not interested in participating further in this article, let alone anything of Wikipedia as they show no other contributions.--Doug ^talk 13:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, administrators can't look up the IP addresses of usernames. For the same reason, I have no idea why you seem to post as both Doug Coldwell and Doug Cauldwell -- could you please explain that? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, had a "senior moment". Can you (or I) just delete this account of Doug Cauldwell, then I won't have these "moments" again. Thanks. --Doug ^talk 21:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as deleting accounts, either -- where would the contributions go? Just don't log in as Cauldwell. Change the password to something random if you feel like you have to stop yourself. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Great idea! Thanks, will do that.--Doug ^talk 22:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

I was the editor who made a request on WP:THIRD, as it seemed the discussion wasn't progressing. However, a while later the other editor in the dispute explained that his objections weren't to the content being removed. After a lot of hullabaloo he explained that he was objecting to why it wasn't removed from the other articles as well. Unfortunately on the bollywood biopages, theres a lot of stuff that shouldn't be there, but since its been there for so long, editors have come to believe thats how it should be.

In this case, once I removed the content being debated about from the other pages, the dispute was resolved. Honestly, there are so many pages under Wikiproject Bollywood that I see this happening again sometime in the future, but its nice to know the community is there to help us out with a Third opinion in future.

I just realised, I don't know whether or not I'm supposed to reveal that I was the person who made the request, since on the page we're told to sign only with date, not our sigs. However, in the page history, the editor's name can still be found, so I guess the question is moot anyway.

Anyhow, just wanted to say thank you for dropping by on the page.

Regards, xC | ☎ 04:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking for an outside opinion

Could you give an outside opinion on the following edits? [2] [3] The criteria being used to determine what is "on topic" seems self contradictory and I think its part of an ongoing campaign by a small group of editors to push their POV, but I could use an outside opinion and I've checked out your edits - you seem pretty even handed about adding content on Wikipedia.-75.179.159.240 12:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

rfa nominations

Can non-admins vote in requests for adminship? I was just wondering, as I can't see any documentation on it. I like your sig, by the way! themcman1 _Talk 15:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• forget that, i wasn't looking hard enough! themcman1 _Talk 15:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Signature

FYI, your talk page link in your signature is showing up as "ɹəədsɹ" for me (which may or may not display that the inverted-r's (presumably) are showing up as non-character boxes. Internet Explorer 6, which is still fairly common, on a default font set, if that helps. 64.126.24.12 14:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think that has to do with the fonts that come with Windows, which are kind of lacking in their Unicode support. Any computer with the right fonts to view IPA pronunciation guides will be able to display my signature. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Your criticisms

I posted a reply to your criticism of my voting on the RfA page. You seem to have taken my argument out of context, left out a key part of the argument, then used that to critcize my vote. My vote was based on a two part argument: lack of experience and poor demonstration of knowledge of policy. I did not go into enough detail, perhaps, but consider the latter failing the more important. Granted, edit counts are not perfect, but they can be viewed (with caution) as a measure of experience. However, a big part of my oppose vote was based on my impression that this user does not have a firm understanding of policy. The issues you raised in your vote only highlight this impression. Cheers. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The guideline for edit counts was once that you should stop taking them seriously after about 500 or so edits. In particular, official Wikipedia discussions that are restricted to experienced users have never distinguished edit counts above 500. If you think you can tell anything about an editor by whether they have 7,000 edits or 1,500, you're casting an unfounded vote. The way you expressed your vote implies that you think that the editor does not have a firm understanding of policy because of their edit count, so that's why I'm opposed to it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more precise in my verbiage. Language can at times lead to misunderstandings, such as here. I have recently offered support to candidates with fewer edits than this user. In fact, I typically take edit counts with a grain of salt, having seen users with far more edits than this who clearly are not and may never be somebody I would support as an admin. I did not want to make a huge stink about the AfD debacle several other users have brought up on the RfA, but that was a big facotr in my decision. That occured only a couple months ago and seemed to show a lack of understanding of even what a reliable source is: sourcing sombody's blog is really not that reliable. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My vote has been withdrawn. Thanks for the hounding. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you had valid reasons behind your oppose vote (I know I had reasons for mine, after all), and all you needed to do was express your reasons more clearly. Sorry that you became one of my first "targets" when I started taking a hard stance against editcountitis on RfA, and I'm glad you took it well in the end. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree very much with your basic premise, as I understand it: that edit counts are really not very useful in evaluating whether or not a user would make a good admin. Given the amount of vandalism that we see daily, its pretty clear that the more "good" users able to block the "bad" the better. Still, I would like to think that administrators understand wikipedia inside and out. In some cases, I have voted support for users who are primarily focused on vandalism, even if they were not heavily involved in other admin tasks, because I felt that they would be reliable in applying blocks where necessary. But whatever, Wikipedia is really not that important, as they say. —Gaff ^ταλκ 06:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A token of appreciation

		The Special Barnstar
		This is in appreciation of your efforts in trying to improve RfA standards by questioning superficial comments and combating editcountitis - TwoOars 19:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And I like the way you express your opinions on RfAs (although I do not always agree with them); they really show that you took some time to judge a person and did not just look at some numbers. Cheers. - TwoOars 19:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - I am glad more people are seeing sense and realising numbers mean so little. Majorly (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and btw, I love your signature :) Majorly (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'm glad my votes are appreciated -- I think if more people start making votes like this, RfA will become a more reasonable place. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TomasBat

Regarding your comments in the oppose section of this RfA; not to be too picky but I thought you were being unfair to TomasBat regarding the User:AlexHillan block. User:AlexHillan hasn't left WP and is actively editing. And the other editor (whose comments you quoted), was not really harassing AlexHillan; they were only trying encourage him, though in a sort of misguided way (as you can see in from this exchange). Neither was TomasBat. I saw his comments there as being very friendly. (I saw this whole exchange much before this RfA started). Just pointing this out because your oppose makes it out like TomasBat was instrumental in AlexHillan leaving WP. - TwoOars 20:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I guess the drawback of looking at a pseudo-random sample of a user's contributions is that I see things out of context. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hello, Rspeer, and thank you so much for your support in my recent RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I will try very hard to live up to your expectations – please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again! KrakatoaKatie 00:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or unlicensed drivers such as Paris Hilton.

My RFA

Thanks for your input at my recent rfa. I want you to know I'm not homophobic in anyway. Sexual preference makes no difference on Wikipedia; the only thing that matters to me is that the user contributes in a constructive manner. Again, thanks for your input at my recent unsuccessful RFA. --Wikihermit ^{(Talk • HermesBot)} 04:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if you planned to revisit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fvasconcellos ? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA :)

Thank you, Rspeer, for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1. I hope I will meet everyone's expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page. Again, thank you for taking the time to comment, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I'd also like you to know that I found your reason for voting Neutral relevant and fair. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

William Cheung page

Hi, sorry for bothering you. I posted a request for Administrator intervention [4] and page protection for the William Cheung page, and was wondering if you could take a look at things. I take full responsibility for any violations on my part in trying to maintain the NPOV of the article. --Marty Goldberg 06:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"Notability is not a reason for deletion"?!

Hello - While I appreciate your taking the news music package article to AFD, I was totally confused by the reason you gave for removing my prod on the Edward Carrington Thayer article. Since when is notability (or, more precisely, the lack of it) NOT a reason for deletion? #14 at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion is "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)." WP:BIO#Articles_not_satisfying_this_guideline clearly says that articles that can't be improved to meet the policy [because their subjects are inherently non-notable] should be considered for deletion. If you disagree about whether he is notable, that's fine, but disagreeing on whether notability is a criteria seems bizarre. Most of the articles at AFD are deleted because of non-notability. Propaniac 14:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability goes in and out of style, it seems. Last I knew, notability was just a proxy for "verifiability by reliable sources", and for that reason "just not notable" is listed as a reason to avoid. The problem with most non-notable things -- and the reason notability is a useful argument -- is that you won't typically find reliable sources about non-notable things. This article had a few sources, so I thought it was hardly a slam-dunk deletion, and felt it may even be promoting systemic bias toward the present to delete a minor 19th-century politician. You are welcome to disagree -- it should probably go to AfD. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is why my prod stated "no evidence (and barely an assertion) of notability." You know, evidence, like reliable sources? The sources given are some woman's memoir (a book and author with no worthwhile Google hits) and a newspaper column that mentioned the guy had made a lot of money and gave a lot to charity in his will, neither of which confers notability on their face. Like I said, if you think it's iffy, that's one thing, but I hope you don't go around rescuing every half-decent article about a non-notable subject because you can't be bothered to check what the policies are. Propaniac 18:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for checking out the reliability of the sources; based on that, the article should probably be deleted. There's no need to make this personal, though. If making one questionable decision in clearing out half a day's backlog of PRODs gets me flamed like this, it's a good reminder of why I don't close AfDs. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the article as if I hadn't challenged the PROD. Hopefully this puts things right. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I did get more vitriolic than I should have; I apologize. I was irritated that an administrator removed a prod so close to the expiration date, for a reason that I knew was directly opposite to a policy I know fairly well, and that my understanding of the policies was being questioned. I didn't want to have to take the article to AFD, where it could possibly have found a reprieve as a dull, mediocre article that couldn't reach a consensus for deletion, when there were no actual objections to the prod. I would have been less annoyed if the article had been more obviously heinous. Propaniac 13:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

It looks like my Request for Admin has closed successfully at (58/8/2). I am very grateful for your support. I think your pointing out of my interactions over at Talk:Sports club is one of the key reasons why I was given the mop. I consider it my duty to try to live up to the trust that you and others have shown in me. SirFozzie 17:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Max Naylor 2

Minor issue: The RfA analysis tool can't parse your comment [5], because it can't attribute your (indented) signature to your comment and interprets it as an unsigned !vote. It's a common issue with bulleted comments which necessarily include line breaks.

You could reformat it like this, but the bullet formatting works only with line breaks:

1. Support based on contributions. Checking over Max Naylor's contributions, he's made extensive edits in his area of expertise (Iceland), and his work there involves communicating well with other users, organizing a WikiProject and a newsletter, contributing images (including high-quality SVGs), working with templates, and so on. My only criticism is that he should use edit summaries more often, which would make it easier to tell what he's working on. Now, some other reasons to support:
   *No neediness for tools. (What a great phrase!)
   *Three years of experience. Incidentally, in those three years he's accumulated a perfectly reasonable edit count of 2000+, which of course isn't influencing my vote, but makes one doubt the sanity of those who are opposing based on edit count.
   *10 opposers, so far, have had the chance to give legitimate reasons why Max Naylor would be untrustworthy and come up with jack all.
   rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Best regards, —AldeBaer 17:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, but I don't particularly care if the bot knows how to count my vote. It's a bureaucrat who'll be closing it, and presumably they will count it (and hopefully they're doing more than just counting anyway). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, nevermind. —AldeBaer 00:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Smile

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

BTW, you have a cool sig. Cheers!--†Sir James Paul† 05:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you X 100

Thank you very much for supporting my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday... W00t! I hope to be a great admin (and editor) and I'm sure you can tell that my use of a large, boldfaced, capital "T" and a big checkmark image in this generic "thank you" template that I swiped from some other user's Talk Page that I totally mean business! If you need anything in the future or if you see that I've done something incorrectly, please come to my Talk Page and let me know. So now I've got a bunch of reading to do.... see you around! - eo 13:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC) G11: FocusFixer? Hi, I added a short page about FocusFixer. This was not an advert. As a scientist working in the field since 1978 I thought I was adding something positive - and would probably have added more to the deconvolution article as (it needs it). I added the FocusFixer page as it is an example of a use of deconvolution used in digital image processing. It was short and to the point. It would form an interesting record of how such abstract techniques as deconvolution are now becoming mainstream and available to the general public. Having shown how deconvolution is now available I was also going to show how super-resolution is now also available to the ordinary user of digital cameras. It makes sense to link these to the company responsible for putting these techniques into products. There are many other similar examples on Wikipedia. I hope you will reconsider. Thanks TimAth An unreferenced article promoting a commercial Photoshop plugin made me (and Naconkantari, too) conclude that its purpose was to sell the plugin. If this plugin actually merits a Wikipedia article, feel free to put back a version with references. And sorry for the delayed response. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC) AvoDerm Article rewritten removing any points which may promote it as an advertisement or SPAM. This is a good faith attempt to create this article with no POV. I don't work for the company and have no affiliation to the company nor does my dog eat the products from this company. I just didn't know what points in the original article tipped it into the SPAM category. Thanks. --Chuck Noles1984 16:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Your rewrite looks good. I agreed to the speedy deletion of the article because it really read like corporate spam to me -- sorry that I misread your intent. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stephan Schulz I've replied to your comments here. Also, I didn't know WP:BEANS was a valid reason to blank an RfA talk page. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie hábleme 13:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC) I've never seen it done before, but I assume there's a reason Mathbot isn't posting these statistics anymore. Putting edit counts on the talk page seems to encourage voting based on edit counts, something that's quite discouraged. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC) I agree. --Boricuaeddie hábleme 17:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) I don't think anybody is going to be voting solely on the basis of total numbers. In particular, I find the list of "most-edited pages" in each namespace very helpful, because it enables me to look at the edit history of those and get a reliable answer to the immortal question "what exactly do you do around here?" —freak(talk) 22:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC) 4x4 square templates nominated for deletion Hello Rspeer. I've nominated most-perfect magic square templates on Meta for deletion. (I've posted this message here since you don't seem to be regularly active on Meta.) You participated in an earlier discussion in 2005 that was never closed; if you'd like to comment again, please see m:Meta:Requests for deletion#4x4_type_squares. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:49:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Mark Hucko Hi, I saw that you made an edit to Mark Hucko with the summary: Redoing Amire80's edit after the restore, with the summary: "deleted Multi-Level Universe - self-published" And i don't see my own edit there. What happened there? Did it happen because of a failure in Wikipedia's database? If yes - where are such things announced and documented? Or was it some controversy about the edit itself? I am cleaning up the weirdest parts of articles related to that guy (mostly Slovio) and some people may not like it. Thanks, Amir E. Aharoni 07:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC) I'm helping with the cleanup too. The editor before you had made an extremely libelous edit. By the Biographies of Living People policy, the right thing for me to do there is to delete the edit from the history. Unfortunately, since you didn't spot the vandalism, that meant that the libel stayed in for your edit. If I deleted the vandal's edit, then the situation would be even worse, because it would look like you wrote it! So instead, I deleted both edits and redid your edit, or what your edit would have been on an unvandalized page. Incidentally, I have no idea who Mark Hucko is (aside from what the article tells me). I came across this page on "random article", I think. But there clearly is something weird going on with articles related to him, and you're doing the right thing to clean up these articles. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the reply. It is indeed weird that Mark Hucko AFD was closed as "no consensus" and Slovio AFD was closed as "keep", even though both had strong arguments that supported deletion. I am deleting the most obvious nonsense from the articles. Even after that i shall probably propose it for deletion again. Only hardcore conlang enthusiasts may consider this subject notable. --Amir E. Aharoni 08:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the heads up! Oh snap! I saw a period placement that I would've put a red line through on a student paper a little while back and got hypersensitive to it -- the fact that it seemed so pervasive should have been a good clue for me that it's the prevailing style on Wikipedia rather than an actual problem, huh? :) Duly noted and enlightened. Cheers! Soundoftoday 01:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Username VIolations If the user name is claerly a violation such as shitonme or something of the sort. IT is general practice to go ahead and soft block the account and watch for an unblock request. Usually if there are no edits it is best for them to create a new account and not encourage them to go through the hassle of a name change when there is nothing to carry over. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC) This "general practice" is frowned on by editors at the Village Pump and is not supported by the username policy. I will not block newbies for violating a rule they have never seen. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC) While it may be frowned upon, the policy as I read it, WP:USERNAME states, "Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are confusing, misleading, disruptive, promotional or offensive. In borderline cases, you will be asked to choose a new username; in egregious cases, your account will simply be indefinitely blocked." Wiktionary defines egregious as meaning "Exceptional, conspicuous, outstanding, most usually in a negative fashion." or "Outrageously bad.". WHile it may be frowned upon, current policy permits and encourages the indef blocking of outrageously bad usernames. Hence WP:UAA. It is my belief that names such as shitonme88 count as an egregious. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC) "Shitonme" is not outrageously bad unless you are very easily outraged. WP:UAA is not Wikipedia's roving censor squad. The rule was clearly meant to expedite blocking names that were created in bad faith (as described elsewhere on the page), not every single name that violates one of the WP:U rules that newbies have never seen. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I ask myself, would the average individual have a problem with the username? If I were asked to address somebody by that name, would the average human being find it difficult to say the name? Would it be embarrassing? It has nothing to do with being easily outraged, it has to do with my interpretation of how an average individual would react. I am fairly strict in my interpretation of the username policy. I let alot slide however there is a point where it may not be in bad faith but has the potential to be uncomfortable enough that they should just get a new name. (and by all means I am not a prude, I have a very open mind in many areas). Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC) You are listing all the reasons that I warned the user to change their username. Why do you insist on blocking newbies for a first offense against a minor policy, a punishment which is far out of proportion to everything else on Wikipedia? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC) As a further not, WP:U states that "Offensive usernames that may make harmonious editing difficult or impossible, including but not limited to:" ... "Usernames that include slurs, or references to reproductive or excretory bodily functions." Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC) You'll notice that the text you're quoting is not followed by "block them now! hurry!!!" A warning remains the appropriate response. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC) You will however read, "Clearly inappropriate usernames should be reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, and can be blocked on sight by any administrator." Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Dont get me wrong, I am all for WP:AGF, and take alot of crap for it at times. I respect your stance, and am atually willing to take some of your advice in give in some areas. There are others I feel that should, as the policy says, "be blocked on site" I think the exceptionally long and or confusing names overly blocked and should be given time. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Thank you. I've taken crap consistently through my Wikipedia career for defending newbies, but I keep doing it, because newbies are the future of Wikipedia. If you assume good faith and look at what this newbie did before being blocked, you'll notice that they weren't a vandal. They were confused, naive, and self-promoting, but that's not a capital offense last I checked, and many good Wikipedians have started out that way. But you're arguing that this non-vandal should be indefinitely blocked, because you can declare his username to be "clearly inappropriate". I've already argued that it's not; it's just a run-of-the-mill username violation. What do you gain by trumping this up into a block? Because Wikipedia loses a potential contributor. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Were you here when I refused to block a username with the word pimp in it? We almost lost a long time contributor for it. We need to weigh both sides of the pictures. I think the question to ask is, would it be disruptive or uncomfterable if i said this name in casual conversation. While not a hard and fast rule, i believe it is important to weight both the interests of the current contributors with the interests of new contributors. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I appreciate your effort. No, I was not here. I have only recently arrived at WP:UAA, when I saw the outcry against it on the Village Pump and decided to try to work towards a solution. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC) ←I am all for working towards a solution. I think there are some problems, but I believe that the spirit of the username policy is to prevent extremely uncomfterable usernames. I agree it has gotten out of hand with maximum lengths or the "overly confusing" usernames. I have worked on UAA and RFCN for quite a while now. I think an important thing to iron out is what is the consensus of the spirit of the username policy. It is not about the bureaucracy and the official places to report stuff, the question is, why is WP:U here? Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Sure. It's just that the thing I'm working on right now, because it seems easiest to fix, is that the current bureaucracy strongly encourages people to block as a first resort, even though I'm pretty sure that wasn't the point of the username policy, and this has led to Wikipedia losing contributors. There are ways to prevent things besides blocking -- just look at the RC patrollers, who generally block only on a fourth offense. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC) So, the question becomes, why do we block inappropriate usernames at all? I believe the opposite (however respect your opinion). I believe the bureaucracy will try to force us to go through a series of hurdles before we prevent the username from being used. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Bot putting name back The name that featured age and being from Portugal, that you said had been put back? If you look closely, it was actually two very similar but definitely different names, which in fact points to abuse, or that the first one got blocked anyway so they tried to create another. SamBC(talk) 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Neither account has edited anything, so there isn't any abuse to see at this point. My good-faith assumption is that the user forgot their original long username and created another. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Reply In fact, you should feel free to encourage me to only "use account creation blocks in the most serious cases." I already do. If you think bad faith wasn't intended with Goddamn phucking Clintons! (talk · contribs) then I'm afraid all I can do is say you would appear to be assuming good faith where none should be extended. In addition, your claim that "nothing in the username policy says a hard block was appropriate in this case" is false. I quote from the username policy: "Clearly inappropriate usernames should ... be blocked on sight by any administrator. In these cases it is frequently useful to disable account creation, if the username appears to have been created in bad faith." Picaroon (t) 03:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I'm not defending the name "Goddamn phucking Clintons!", but I'd like to give a comparison. Those who block for vandalism extend more good faith than is likely to be necessary all the time. They give up to four warnings before they block, and then the block isn't indefinite. Most of those people tend to keep on vandalizing, but not all of them. I'd say that most areas of Wikipedia have found that it's better to give second chances. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Good change I like the change in the wording you made to the bot note. Sorry if I got a bit cross before, I think we may have been talking cross purposes. I will re-read the conversation in the morning with a fresh mind. Until(1 == 2) 04:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks. I think we've found some common ground, and found the places where we disagree, and they're within the leeway allowed by WP:U. I'm going to let things run their course for a bit, and see if the new wording helps anything. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Penske I was under the impression that an indefinite block is standard practice for any unacceptable username. I will, however, enable account creation. Daniel Case 18:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Nope, only blatantly inappropriate usernames -- read the policy. And blocking account creation is reserved for cases of obvious bad faith. With the potential for users to be blocked so soon after they arrive at Wikipedia, you want them to have the chance to try again under an acceptable username. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC) 180 (number) I don't think what I added to this page was appropriate at all, I knew someone would remove it, I only added it for the benefit of somebody else. Don't worry, I won't post it again, am I forgiven ? 81.145.240.54 15:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Huh. I'm trying to figure out what's so great about having someone screw with Wikipedia for your benefit. Anyway, you're forgiven. I wish you well if you decide to edit more productively in the future. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC) RE: I blocked because the name implies that the sole purpose of the account is to operate for the Steven Springs Foundation, going against WP:COI. I'm sorry if my prose isn't really coherent; I'm not that great at coherent writing. (btw, Ryan Postlethwaite left the same response on my talk) —« ANIMUM » 22:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Implication of what someone might do isn't a reason to block, and neither is Ryan Postlethwaite's ridiculous interpretation of WP:U. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC) The name itself is promotional, it is a certainty that any edit would bare that name, blocking prevents promotion. It is well within policy to block clear violations on sight. Until(1 == 2) 22:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Within one interpretation of policy, which I've been telling you seems harmful. You told me to discuss overzealous blocks on the talk page of the admin doing the blocking, and if you and Ryan are going to follow me to every such page and continue the argument there, this won't do anything but create a big snowballing mess. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC) I did say to discuss bad blocks with admins, but part of discussing is people explaining their interpretation of events. I am not following you, I am watching your talk page. I am seeing people post about your messages to them. Until(1 == 2) 23:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC) I would add that the policy says that company/organisation names are considered promotional, not likely to be promotional (as is the case for domain names). SamBC(talk) 22:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Oh, I understand that they shouldn't have that username, which is what {{UsernameConcern}} is for. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your comment Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. LyrlTalk C 00:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC) hmmm Hey buddy. I may be over-thinking or just seeing something that's not there, but you and I have seem to come across each other in a head-butting sort of way the last week or so. I do not wish to come across in a bad way with anyone, and am hoping for a fresh start. So I thought I'd swing by and start anew, and say hello. I think we have looked at a couple things differently, and just want to make sure there are no issues beyond that. Hope all's well, and, as always, happy editing! Jmlk17 05:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Meatpuppet policy, add proxypuppet? Hey there, RSpeer. Since you seem to have been the firm pen that initiated the last rewrite of the meatpuppet policy, your input would be most welcome on this which is out for consensus consideration. If you would like to comment or critique, please do so there. -- Lisasmall | Talk 21:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Question Hi rspeer - I have answered that question of yours. I have answered, in a nutshell, but saying that, in heinsight, a request for comment at RFCN would have been better, where the community could have discussed the username. This course of action would, of course, involve first placing {{usernameconcern}} on their talk page, and waiting for a response, as the user may have been very willing to change their username, or usurp another. I hope this answers the question adequately. I thank you once again for asking it. Cordially, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Inappropriate usernames Hi Rspeer, over at WP:UAA I saw that you had removed User:Peehahalol and User:1hitk1ller as not warranting username blocks. I think the first user qualifies under policy 5, subcategory 'Usernames that include slurs, or references to reproductive or excretory bodily functions', and the second under policy 5, 'Usernames that refer to real-world violent actions'. Any chance you might reconsider? Thanks! All the best, Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 06:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Hello, with reference to your message on my talk page, I checked WP:U again, and on criterion 5 it mentions "Usernames that include slurs, or references to reproductive or excretory bodily functions". So, that was why I considered it offensive. Cheers.--Alasdair 07:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Yes... the way I understand it, the word "reference" implies you could refer to excretory functions in a purely clinical manner, and it would still be an inappropriate username, even if not a curse word. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 07:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC) and... I created a discussion on the talk page of UAA here if you'd like to weigh in, since there seems to be disagreement on this issue. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 07:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Bandidopervert Okay then. I should have warned him for his libelous actions on the talk of Talk:Edward Winterhalder. I deleted it instead of blanking it to prevent wasting server space. bibliomaniac15 Tea anyone? 22:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Ah, that makes sense. I thought I had looked for deleted contributions, but I suppose I didn't. Thanks for the reply. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks File:Hersfold.JPG Thanks... Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA. Even though you didn't support my candidacy, I did greatly appreciate your comments, which I will certainly put to good use in improving myself as an editor. I do plan to make another request in a few months, once I have improved upon your concerns. Thank you again, and happy editing! Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC) RFA edit count comment You recently wrote in an RFA: The 6700 edits you demand is more than most current admins have ever made. Do you know that this is true? Are you aware of some way to find out (easily) what the average number of edits editors had when they became admins, or how that changed over time? It would be great to see some statistics about this as it would give some clarity to the edit-count issue that many voters hinge their approval on. Rigadoun (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC) No, I don't know that it's true. I conclude it based on a rough model: admins have been promoted at a relatively constant rate over time, while editcountitis has been growing exponentially*, so most admins needed to meet a much lower edit count standard when they were promoted. If this is not the case, the alternatives are either that admin candidates in the past made many more edits than the community thought necessary to be promoted -- which I doubt, because candidates have always complained about editcountitis -- or that admins have drastically increased their editing rates after being promoted, and I don't see a reason why that would happen. I have been thinking of making a graph of edit counts of admins over time, though -- I just have to have the time to write a bot that will collect the statistics. Thanks for asking -- I'm glad to know that someone else is interested in quantifying this issue. * Until I run the bot and make the graph, this too is just a guess based on limited data. In my time on Wikipedia I have seen it take roughly equal amounts of time for the consensus "minimum edit count" to grow from 2000 to 4000 as it took to grow from 1000 to 2000, and comments from longer-term users say that 500 to 1000 happened about the same way. And this is why I contest demands for, say, 6700 edits -- if nothing changes in the culture of RfA, demands for 8000 edits will be commonplace within a year. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC) 'Pee' and such in usernames Hi Rspeer, since we had an ongoing discussion on this matter on the talkpage about the 'offensive' category, I would appreciate you not templating me on this matter, seeing as I'm an established user. Thank you. ~Eliz81(C) 07:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC) The {{uw-uaa}} template is meant for regulars. Newbies don't use UAA. I have been told by pro-blocking users that the only thing I can do to prevent UAA creep is to warn everyone I think is misusing it, and this takes a lot of time, but at least the template makes it easier. Your report was exactly the reason the {{uw-uaa}} warning exists: you are acknowledging here that you knew it would be controversial, but you posted it on UAA instead of RFCN anyway. The good-faith assumption is that you were unaware of the purpose of RFCN, so I followed the simple directions for informing you of it. Sorry if you don't like the template; maybe you should start a discussion about whether that instruction should change. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC) For what it's worth, User:Pee pee ramone, User:Uknowpee, User:I need to pee REAL BAD!, and User:Mypeepee (albeit the last one with vandalism too) were blocked for offensive usernames. I'm presuming you disagree with these blocks? If you do disagree, should anything be done about these blocks now? I'm more trying to understand than anything. If other admins interpret 'pee' as blocking on sight, this matter is quite confusing to good faith contributors to UAA. ~Eliz81(C) 08:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Yes, I do think that UAA has been seriously misused in the past, but it's too late to do anything about previous misuses. The appropriate thing to do now is to use RFCN for its intended purpose, so that we can come to a consensus decision. That's far better than posting it on UAA and hoping the first admin who shows up agrees with you. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Trust me, I understand exactly where you're coming from, and I understand your point. I brought it up on the UAA talk page was to try to establish what exactly was going on with this offensive category. I encourage you to discuss the issue with admins who make borderline blocks, since they set a confusing precedent for the rest of us. Consistency and consensus is much better for everyone involved, and appropriate reports will be much easier to make, since we're all just trying to make the encyclopedia better. I assure you that I have never made a contribution to UAA lightly, but the ensuing discussion has inspired me to start weighing my options more for RFCU and templating talkpages, and thank you for that. That being said, I think you and I should receive some special Wiki award for the longest ever discussion referring to urine. Although sadly, there may be a thread that's worse. ~Eliz81(C) 08:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC) (outdent) OK, in the spirit of trying to be more careful about excretory functions per the WT:UAA discussion which included 'Snakepoop', I reported User:Pooopy at WP:RFCN, where I was promptly told it belonged at WP:UAA. This is getting incredibly frustrating, since I'm trying my best to be as conscientious as possible. ~Eliz81(C) 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC) That's terrible -- you shouldn't be criticized for using RFCN. I fail to understand what's the big hurry among the RFCN and UAA crowd. Wikipedia will not collapse if a few people get to make a few edits using a slightly unsavory username. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC) A gift For your kindness and good humor, I present you with this shrub. It will require trimming about once a month. The pool filter behind the fence is not included. Thank you. shoeofdeath 20:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC) special characters I've been notified that the special characters in my new sig would make illegible on many computers/settings. Since you also have special chars in your sig, I thought I'd ask you what you know about related potential display problems. — [ ˈaldǝˌbɛːɐ ] 18:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Nevermind. PMAnderson suggested checking via IE, where all of the special characters in my sig were displayed as boxes. In your sig, only the upside down r is displayed incorrectly. — [ aldebaer ] 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC) This is why I keep my username in plain text (with the "decorated" version being my talk page link). Indeed, your sig doesn't show up correctly for me on many systems. Definitely not on Windows (which doesn't come with IPA support), and not even on a Mac on Firefox (the accent characters show up as question marks) -- it only works on my Ubuntu Linux system. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Ok, thanks for checking. On my system, it works perfectly fine with WindowsXP/Firefox, doesn't work with XP/IE. I changed it back as you can see. Still weird that IPA characters are not widely supported. — [ aldebaer ] 21:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Dreadstar RfA Click there to open your card! → → → Rspeer, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 55 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to vote in my nomination. I'm a new admin, so if you have any suggestions feel free to let me know. I would like to give a special shout out to Fang Aili, Phaedriel, and Anonymous Dissident, for their co-nominations. Thank you all! Dreadstar Credits This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's modification of Phaedriel's RFA thanks. I will do my very best to live up to the trust that has been placed in me, and I hope to earn yours one day as well. Dreadstar † 09:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Thank you I passed my RfA, and couldn't have done it without your trust and support. Thank you very much. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 12:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Inflation Note that I left a note here that I actually wanted to place on your talk page. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Edokter RfA Dear Rspeer, Thank you for your participation in my Request for Adminship, which ended succesfully with 26 supports, 3 opposes and 1 neutral. A special thanks goes to Rlevse for nominating me. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA. Please do not hesitate to point out any errors I will make (unintentionally of course), so I won't make them again. Please contact me if you need anything done, that's what I'm here for! — Edokter • Talk • 13:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC) answer for you! See m:Talk:Right to vanish. Broadly speaking, the point is that vanishing means, a member of the porject has reviewed, and approved the request, and set any terms needed. For a person with a poor track record those would include for example, that the request seems in good faith, and knowledge of their new account ID. A bad actor will ask to depart, then secretly return, not ask for help. The typical scenario would be someone with blocks for 3RR, vandalism, incivility, attack, or who has been caught up in drama and is seen so negatively that anything they do will be slammed, even if reasonable. They want a clean start, but they don't want their new account to be slammed again as a sock, if the change is later discovered. So they want our help to do it without problems, so they can have a genuine clean start, and we review the request, and believe it's genuine and there is no evidence its a "game", and set any terms we feel necessary. That is the typical "RtV" scenario for that option, which I had in mind... comments welcome? FT2 (Talk | email) 05:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC) WP:UAA I don't dispute that the explanation for the report wasn't explicit enough, and for that I happily apologise. I do still stand by the view that the username breached policy and that reporting was an appropriate action, though. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 22:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Inappropriate User Activity You have correctly blocked Bernardlinton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for promoting his organization in Scottish Knights Templar. Paulmagoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been doing the same e.g. inserting a press release for his organization(reverted). --Dikkat 13:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Usernames with "porn" Usernames that offensively include slurs, or references to reproductive or excretory bodily functions. is section 5 of WP:U. Many names with porn in them are blocked, I was not to be aware that they were names from another country, and when that was realised and pointed out to me the names were unblocked as I recall. Hope that answers your question. SGGH speak! 20:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Offensively. That's the word that makes the difference between the username policy and pointless censorship. Whether you read something as a German guy's name or just a nonsense word ending in "porn", neither of them is so blatantly offensive that it makes sense to block. And when an erroneously blocked newbie is unblocked, the damage is done. Essentially, my suggestion is that you should be more careful and not worry so much about some hypothetical person who's slightly offended. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC) My name As a side note, my handle is Jéské Couriano. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 05:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Whoops, I should have checked. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC) SkiersBot I got a message from Skier; I think it migth be safe to unblock SkiersBot now. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 20:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Re:User with long foreign name Because the name appears a random string of letters. I could be mistaken, though, since I have no clue the name is in another language. Do you know what the language that is, and its meaning? Regards, PeaceNT 06:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC) It's too linguistically consistent to be "random". I don't know what language it is, but our combined ignorance should not result in the blocking of a new user. Stop and think: is the existence of this username actually harming Wikipedia? If not, why block without first discussing with the user? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC) The name looks apparently random to me, which is a criterion for block in WP:USERNAME. Also, the block does not prevent discussions, a template was already placed on their talk page - where they can still edit - so the editor in question can still discuss their username or request a rename. The account has made no previous edits, so a block would not be a problem, they could naturally create a new account. I'm not sure what is you opinion about this case. Do you think the name is not random, or that it is random, but does not justify a block? Regards, PeaceNT 07:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC) It's not random -- it's linguistically coherent -- and anyway, since it's not blatantly inappropriate, there was no reason to block without communicating with the user first. The {{uw-username}} warning template exists for cases like this. New users also do not often "bounce back" from blocks, no matter how often username-blocking admins claim that they do. Being blocked is a hostile and unpleasant situation. Now, with this particular username, it doesn't matter that much -- they were vandalizing before they got blocked -- but the block should have been for vandalism, not an indefinite username block, maintaining the harmful precedent that any user can be indefinitely blocked when one admin doesn't like their name. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Ragarding the legitimacy of this username, it looks like our common sense conflicted. My opinion about the name stands, it is both long and random, thus warrant a block. Usernames which are either random or long could be acceptable, but this one is both. I didn't find any vandalism made by this account, (they don't appear to have any contributions, do they?). That is to say their conduct (and whether or not I like this username) has no bearing whatsoever on the block. Regards, PeaceNT 08:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Hmm, and I've just noticed you unblocked User:Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka without first consulting me about your intention of reversing my action. Could you please explain the unblock? Regards, PeaceNT 08:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC) That was a completely out of order unblock. A questionable username, and vandalism leads to a hard username block. This is a clear violation of the username policy and I encourage you to reblock indefinately immediately. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Also, where is the vandalism from the account that you have blocked it for? It has no edits. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Okay, I have no idea what the heck I was looking at -- probably another user on UAA. I'm very sorry about the reblock. This makes me conclude, though, that the user should have never been blocked at all. I quickly reblocked because I thought I had just unblocked a vandal. With that not being the case, I feel the original unblock was completely valid. The stated block reason ("random sequence of characters"), after all, was most likely erroneous (those characters seem far from random). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC) So it seems we have to agree to disagree here. It is my view that this username is long and confusingly random, which is why the account should remain blocked unless the editor agrees to have his or her name changed. Discussion before block is not meant to deal with patent cases of violation. That there might be some kind of supposedly linguistic pattern doesn't make this string of letters less random to the average user (such as myself). I am not happy that you unblocked the user and would appreciate it if you would please use RFCN to have a consensus on this username. Regards, PeaceNT 06:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC) This username is clearly against policy. I know you are trying to change WP:U, which is cool so long as you do it by consensus, but the minute you start using your administrator tools to do that (i.e. by unblocking a user becuase you don't the policy) then that is way out of line. I ask you again to re-block the user, there isn't even a need for RFCN in this case. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC) There is every possibility that this name is based on a real name. To randomly mix some names (from related ethnicities) that I have known in real life, would people block "amritpalsagoo" or "tajindertamala"? They are shorter, but I can't remember the longer ones I've known clearly. It being "random-looking" to a "typical" editor being a reason to block would seem to be an instance of systemic bias. This is a difficult situation to resolve reasonably, but editors (including administrators) should not assume that something pronouncable is random out-of-hand, IMO. SamBC(talk) 11:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC) I've started a discussion on AN/I about this, so feel free to comment there. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC) For the record, the discussion is showing the name was a real name, and was far from an "obvious violation". "Random" was being used as a code word for "non-English", and blocking based on the language of the username has been disallowed throughout Wikimedia. I stand by my unblock. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Civility Is a virtue. Turtlescrubber 05:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC) I think so, too, but you'll have to elaborate. Do you consider it uncivil that I removed your report from UAA? UAA is a very transient place, and the accepted thing to do with reports that don't really belong there is to simply remove them and leave a reason in the edit summary. For reference, if you encounter a username you consider questionable, or a non-blatant violation of policy, you should start by leaving the {{uw-username}} warning on the user's talk page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC) RE: User:Above da rest and User:Kickass1337 User:Above da rest, the deletion log for his main page means he was blocked for being a promotional account. As for kickass, I felt that it violated the offensive and violent sections of WP:U and would have led to disruptive editing had it not been blocked, even though the account had been used for disruption up until the block. Blocks can always be appealed in both cases though. Hope that helps illustrate what I was thinking. SGGH speak! 07:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC) In terms of "yer momma", I understand that some areas of the world would not see that as an offensive term, but wherever I have travelled in my part of the world, saying "your mum" or any variation thereof is offensive. So I hope you understand where I was coming from in that respect. Chuleeporn was unblocked when it was explained to me that porn can be a suffix in some names in non-english languages (the same is the case with 'shit') both points were made on the UAA talk page and now I have adjusted my username actions appropriately (see here for example). I guess I am stricter than others on the usernames, because a lot of the usernames I deal with are just vandals and are obviously so. I avoid dealing abruptly with almost all non-obvious violations now (both that you cited were over a month or nearly so ago) and in the case of the gggggggggg user I would have possibly userconcerned him but I would never have outright blocked him. I have userconcerned on numerous occasions and RFCN'd a large number of names. I am perhaps stricter with more obvious violations, violations which appear obvious to me, and yes once or twice I will make a decision that other people will disagree with, but with respect to your opinion I don't think I'm quite the newbie biter you seem to think I am. I am perfectly willing to take pointers on my admining, however, and if you think I am too strict on usernames then I will see what I can do to loosen up slightly :) SGGH speak! 09:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Rudget RfA Dearest Opposer, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed unsuccessfully with 39 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. I would have liked to gain some experience of being an admin, but it wasn't to be. At least I gained some valuable time there and will use my knowledge picked up to my next candidacy. I would like to say once again, thank you for voting and I hope to see you at my next request be it a nomination or self-induced, I hope I don't get as many questions! Rudget Contributions 09:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia has a second Carlos admin Click there to open your card! → → → My dear Wikipedian Rspeer, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 29 supports, 1 opposed, and 3 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. Special thanks to Carlossuarez46 for encourage me and nomination. Thank you and good day. Carlosguitar Credits This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor, who in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunately this is not entirely my own design. This end the usual RFA thanks spam. You may return to your regular editing now. Successful RfA - Thank you! Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate the support! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Usernames Thanks for your input at WT:U#Blatantly inappropriete usernames. I now realize that the best way to deal with those who haven't edited for months is to ignore them. Please accept my apologies for the unhelpful reports.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 03:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC) WP:UAA Please don't remove valid reports from WP:UAA unless you intend to deal with the reported users yourself. From reading your user page it's apparent that you have a particular opinion about how to deal with inappropriate user names, however, it is not widely shared among other admins, and certainly does not represent a consensus. When you remove valid reports of users who are almost certain to be blocked, as you did here, it basically defeats the purpose of WP:UAA, its helper bot, and the efforts of the admins who watch the page. It's certainly valid to remove reports of names that are not violations, or questionable, but that was clearly not the case here. Thanks, --MCB 06:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC) I removed them because they were following TWINKLE's idea of the username policy, not Wikipedia's. Others have mentioned that they do the same when people make UAA reports that ignore the following prominent, bold text on WP:U: Usernames should not be considered inappropriate unless one of the 5 general reasons applies. These reports also disregarded the instruction on the top of UAA to provide a reason why the username needs to be blocked (not just why it's a violation). Do we really want people to keep going around using TWINKLE as a substitute for reading directions? I don't see how the actual username policy justifies blocking ABNPY6062464163 just for the username. Disregarding the user's edits for the moment, that would have merited at most a warning, and more reasonably a "don't worry about it and get on with life". Now, I'm okay with the fact that you blocked the user, but the block reason should have been for vandalism, not for a minor violation of the username policy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC) I think your position is very much in the minority regarding inappropriate names. It seems very clear to me that "ABNPY6062464163" is a user name that "consist[s] of a confusingly random or lengthy sequence of characters", and I think that if you poll the admins that watch WP:UAA, you'd get a very strong consensus in agreement. People find long, arbitrary, and confusing strings annoying as user names; hence the policy. If this user wants to contribute, he/she is welcome to do so... under a different user name. The fact that the report was generated by Twinkle boilerplate does not make the name any less of a policy violation. If you think Twinkle is not accurately reflecting policy (and I don't believe that's the case at all), that is best dealt with on the talk page for the Twinkle project or in communication with its developer, not by going around and trying to undo reports that are both correct and made in good faith. Thanks, --MCB 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC) I'm dismayed by this misinterpretation of the username policy. Response on your talk page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Re: Reconsider stance on sockpuppetry? Abusive sockpuppetry is still abusive, even when undertaken under the guise of avoiding harassment. If SA had merely switched accounts at some point and gone on to edit quietly, nobody would care. Taking up old disputes with the new account is borderline. But participating on an AFD with both accounts? That's not something that can be justified, in my view, regardless of what motivated the creation of the alternate account. Kirill 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Kemeny-Young method Dear Rob, please moderate in a conflict between Richard Fobes and me. This conflict is about whether Fobes should be listed as an independent inventor of the Kemeny-Young method. Fobes insists that he should be listed. However, in my opinion, he should not be listed. The reasons: (1) Fobes claims that he invented this method in 1991. However, the Kemeny-Young method was already well known in 1991 so that it is rather improbable that Fobes invented this method independently. (2) There is no reliable source that mentions Fobes as an independent inventor of this method. (3) Fobes didn't publish any peer-reviewed paper. (4) Fobes didn't find anything new about this method. Markus Schulze 21:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Different Languages I see. Thank you so much for the explanation. I will go ahead and register a new user name through the Chinese Wikipedia then. :) Arctura 02:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC) As a newbie, I thank you. The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar Thank you for going to my talk page and giving me the answer to my question when you didn't have to. And as a newbie who was bitten on his first day (but quickly learned from the experience}, I thank you for helping all the new Wikipedians. Arctura 02:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)