Talk:Lapsed lurker

Article needs to go away
"Lapsed lurker" is not a term used in the field at all. A Google search on the phrase shows only some 600 hits, mostly mirrors of this very article and some guy who happened to pick the term as a user name on some sites.

Furthermore, as someone who deals with domain names a lot and have read up on domain name conflicts, this article is just incoherent. He talks about a variety of things that aren't linked together in theme and discusses standard cybersquatting as some separate thing. I don't think there's even much that could be salvaged to merge anywhere. DreamGuy 22:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind if it goes away as long as you coherently categorize the strategy
Hi DreamGuy,

There is a currently used strategy whereby someone actively waits for an existing domain registration to expire and then snatches the name the second it becomes available. To do so economically the snatcher needs to be in position to do so at low cost, i.e. as a registrar. The snatchee has limited recourse except to pay the snatcher. This has been described in one article that I cited as "lapsed lurker".

If you can do better in describing the above exact strategy, which happens all the time and is a real thing, and is not clearly described at present in other Wikipedia articles, then please do so. Erxnmedia 12:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge

 * Agree. Lapsed lurker seem like it could be a properly referenced section in the Cybersquatting article, but I don't know that having it as its own article helps any encyclopedia-goers though; someone searching for "lapsed lurker" could find what they need at cybersquatting.  --mordicai. 14:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I agree with the merge, I do have to say that citing be bold & ignore all rules as precedent to avoid the hassle of getting consensus with other editors rubs me the wrong way.  It isn't hard to throw up a merge tag & give other editors the chance to weigh in-- putting off a delete or a merge a couple of days is hardly the end of the world in cases like these, & vastly superior to a "soft delete."  Wikipedia policies are not rules, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't follow them as long as they make sense for the issue at hand.  --mordicai. 14:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no rule saying people can't redirect articles without voting on it first. In a clear cut situation like this, where there is absolutely no justification for the article's existence (neologist name, fork file content, etc.) and the content is so bad that there's nothing worth merging, a quick redirect is easiest, except when people object. And now that you objected, we can have the conversation and yada yada yada and then eventually agree to do what I had previous done with a quick redirect. I guess some people just love red tape. DreamGuy 23:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Its all well & good to say that the fact that people called you out on a soft delete means the system works, yadda yadda yadda, & you're right, it does. The salient point is that the system worked in spite of your failure to adhere to policy.  It isn't about loving red tape, but rather about respect for the consensus of your fellow editors.  When User:Fordmadoxfraud mentioned on your talk page that disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page, you shrugged him off complaining of red tape.  I just think that an article with seven references deserves to be wrung through the system; if cybersquatting gets improved because of it, Wikipedia improves.  A little red tape seems worth it to me.  --mordicai. 00:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I shrugged it off. This is so clear cut that red tape is a waste of time, as any reasonable person looking at the article and who does a google search on the term knows it's nothing but a neologism not in actual use anywhere. If you want to do red tape, start the red tape so this gets over with... but since everyone agrees this shouldn't be an article but nobody but me wanted to actually bother to do anything about it I'm going to do it the fast and sensible way. If you want to wwaste your time doing it the long and pointless way, hey, at least take the effort to do so. If you don't, then don't complain that I fixed it in the meantime. DreamGuy 08:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)