Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gavelclub


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the discussion was delete. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 21:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Gavelclub
Advertising in userspace --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 11:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC) EDIT: It appears he is blocked... Why would the account be blocked before the discussion takes place? That prevents them from even stating their case here. Accounts should be blocked once a consensus on their deletion is made. --  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  02:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Advertising for a club (which apparently is similar to US toastmasters which is a recognized non-profit organization) which one would have to be in Bahrein to do anything with is not much of an ad.   As it clearly is not commercial advertising, the rationale to delete fails. Collect (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What's your view on U, Collect? - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If it were a company - but it is not. As for it being a group for which the policy it was intended, but it is not. The aim of the policy was to prevent COI promotion by use of a username. As noted, there is no improper promotion, nor is it reasonable to claim that the username is specifically a promotional tool for any commercial group of any sort.   The policy is not intended as a Procrustean bed, to be sure -- note the number of editors who have names or part names of groups in their persona names -- 8 start with "ibm" for example (quick look shows thousands in similar categories of using an actual company name as part of a username),  and the large number identifying a church or religion in their names. "Gavelclub" is an extraordinarily innocuous name, indeed.  Shall we start with all of those thousands to meet Procrustes' needs? Collect (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I read the policy the same way you are. "Accounts that represent a group or company are not permitted" and "Explicit use of a company or group name as a username will result in your username being blocked" don't seem to require that we peer into their souls and figure out what their true intentions were.  The policy seems pretty explicit to me.  A person with a username of "IBMslave" or "KookooForChrist" is not passing themselves off as IBM or as a church.  I don't mind easing up on the policy page, the question is how to do it without saddling the much-abused taggers with the chore of reading the minds of the people who created the usernames.  It will take some finesse. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "IBM Thinkpad" is a better example, as is "ibmixpro", or "Jeeps2009" or "Tony the Tiger" or a few thousand more .  Now it is perfectly proper for one to use Procrustes' bed, if one uses it on everyone.  I submit, however, that it ill-fits this username. Collect (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you read those names and come to the conclusion that they are a Thinkpad salesman, car salesman, or ... a tiger? Even if you did come to those conclusions, wouldn't a quick glance at the userpage dispel the idea?  A glance at User:Gavelclub reinforces the idea that it's an account that's intended to represent the club. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (hitting asterisk wall)And the fact is that is does not qualify in any way as an attempt to use WP for any remotely commercial purpose. Nor does it remotely hit any COI policies.  At some point either we simply invoke Procrustes, or we invoke common sense. "Spam" does not include non-profit organizations which make no attempt to use WP for any remotely commercial purpose. Collect (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ←The last conversation I had at WT:CSD where it was me and another guy arguing the point, I said something like "I don't like to work on policy mano-a-mano" ... and then I laughed when I read the first 3 sentences of that article, that seems like a pretty accurate description of most Wikipedia policy discussions. I'll issue invitations at WT:U and WT:CSD to join this discussion, I think it's a good one. Thanks for your input. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Advert page for a spam account.  Triplestop  x3  16:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as spam.  Them  From  Space  23:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is clearly promotional material and it really doesn't have a place here; but it's far from something really egregious. ~ mazca  talk 23:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as inappropriate use of the userspace for advertising if the user has not overwritten his/her page with more appropriate content by the conclusion of this discussion. Advertising applies to more than just commercial enterprises. Note: I do not see a need for speedy-deletion.  Rossami (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. The tone of the page is not aggressively promotional, but I think db-spam could and should be validly applied to any user page that masquerades as an article to promote its subject in a situations where the subject clearly would not survive scrutiny as a real article. It seems clear to me that this sort of masquerade is what's going on here. In some cases one must be careful not to delete user pages that a legitimate editor is using as a sandbox to build up an article before it's ready for main article space, but I think the blocking of this user as a WP:ROLE account makes it clear that that's not what's happening here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced by the delete arguments. The tone is not overly promotional, and it could simply be labeled with the tag to avoid anyone confusing it with an article.  On the other hand, the user's name strongly implies the account is being used to represent a group rather than an individual, but that is outside the scope of MfD. Since he has been indef blocked, it hardly seems to matter anymore what happens to the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope it matters, I hope I'm not wasting my time, because I spend a good part of every day removing stuff from Wikipedia that Wikipedians and readers find objectionable. Google puts userpages in search results the same as articles.  That's wouldn't have been my call, but that's how it works, so I follow WP:U and deletion policy as best I can when deciding what to remove and which accounts to block.  Some people say that old accounts don't matter as much, but that's backwards; Google is more likely to return an older page in a search result than one that's been created recently. - Dank (push to talk) 16:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment With any content, this is apparently an account in violation of current username policy. Not that I necessarily agree about this aspect of policy, but we do have a rule about names that seem to represent a company or group. role account. Solution--encourage the user to get another account, and on his user page, he could talk a little about a club he belongs to. (If there are sources for an article, that's of course another good way, but I doubt there are). DGG (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UP. Specifically, I think "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia" applies. I don't believe it is promotional, but could easily be cut down to "This user belongs to X club which does Y". Wperdue (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue
 * Delete Possibly promotional, but also violates naming policy. Encourage user to get a different name where they can put info in their userspace about their clubs, interests, etc. Fuzbaby (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Userpages should not be wholly devoted to advertising of off-wiki entities, whatever they may be. And leave blocked as a group/role account. Algebraist 00:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Other—An admin should contact this user and invite him to change his username and contribute constructively to the encyclopaedia. Straight deletion without contact is an unwarranted WP:BITE violation.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  10:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a free web host. But what DGG said is better, so do that instead preferably. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to several: There are some good ideas here. In general, the more specific feedback is, the more likely the recipient will perceive it as constructive and not a slap.  I've never bought the line that people whose pages I delete per G11 or whose accounts I softblock are evil and must be stopped.  I would support a change to WP:U and/or the standard user warnings so that we leave a different message in cases where there is a "role account" and potential promotion but nothing that appears to be "advertising".
 * On the other hand, please be aware that there are maybe 10 taggers doing 95% of the G11 tagging and maybe 200 semi-regular taggers. Many of these taggers are somewhat annoyed at being told repeatedly that they got the wrong tag, left the wrong message, and/or violated WP:BITE simply because they followed our policy and left the standard warnings.  The standard softblock warning uw-ublock begins: "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. [Bolding is in the warning itself.] If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it—see below."  I'm not wedded to the current policy or user warnings, but please be aware that taggers need more support and encouragement than they're getting; it's counterproductive when people badger taggers on their talk pages or vote against them at RFA for following current consensus as recorded on the policy and userwarning pages. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you make an excellent case for extensive rewriting of some of the templates involved, to be sure. Though I am also sure my version would be derided mercilessly :   "This username does not meet the WP username policies.  Please read WP:USERNAME and try using one which meets its requirements. Thank you, and we hope to see you editing on WP soon under a new name.  If you feel blocking this name is in error, you may ask for it to be reviewed (see below)." Collect (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me in the general case; I'd want to supplement this with other options for specific cases. (tweaked) - Dank (push to talk) 14:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free -- I just feel that the old wording is a tad stiff ("appeal" makes it sound like a courtroom proceding )  I trust you implicitly with this.  Collect (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that changing the template would take some of the bite out of it.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  22:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is a great idea. It accomplishes the goal of helping the taggers as well as making sure that new users don't feel they are being persecuted. Wperdue (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue
 * Delete. A quick look at his contributions shows that he signed up and proceeded to add his userpage, then stopped and made no further edits. The combination of the username, advertising, and no other edits makes me vote this way. I'd be fine if a non advertising username had that as their userpage (I've mentioned websites or projects I'm working on in my userpage in the past, this could be along the same lines if the user is a member). --  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When one is blocked almost immediately on making a userpage, it is a tad hard to posit making any further edits . Collect (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe they've been blocked yet, and it's been several days. When most users create an account on wikipedia it's not to create a userpage initially... Or at the very least not to create a userpage only. Most will make some other edits in their first session. This user clearly signed up, made their userspace into a billboard, and ventured off into the vast expanses of the internet.


 * Comment I think the idea of re-writing the username block template is a good one, but outside the scope of MfD. Let's pick it up here. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm the blocking admin. Having just become aware of the discussions here and at the Wikipedia talk:Username policy page, I've unblocked User:Gavelclub so they can participate in this discussion.  For the record, I think this is a fairly clear case of advertising/promotion, and the page should be deleted.  Exploding Boy (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Odds of a newbie, who is told by template that they are indefinitely unwelcome to post, logging in again to see if that is still true are nil. The harm, such as it is, has been done - the moving finger wrote already. Collect (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not be melodramatic. The template tells the user (in bold) that they are encouraged to choose a new account name and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia.  Brand new accounts are blocked by the dozens every single day, many of them for username issues.  The ones that intended to contribute in the first place register new names and get on with it. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Blank or otherwise edit. No need for four-letter words (spam), setting up the account is an easy enough mistake to make.  Refer to Alternative outlets.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.