Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editors who may be confused (2nd nomination)

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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:  speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW. The vast majority of editors commenting argue that it's a useful resource, although some suggest a rename. Consensus to delete is not going to happen. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editors who may be confused

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

The page's creator has repeatedly added users who've removed themselves, in spite of clear discussions on the talk page recommending that this not be done. Wikipedia is not a webhost, and such a list should be kept on a user's computer, not on Wikipedia. As someone approaching old age, I also find the current title offensive, not humorous. BilCat (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Prior nomination: WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Editors_who_may_be_confused


 * There is no policy that requires editors to seek permission of another editor to reference their name on a page. If the page needs a move the process is WP:RM, not WP:MFD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'm proposing deletion, not renaming. BilCat (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, you also mentioned you think the title is offensive. To resolve that it should be moved. As for the deletion, is there a specific policy or community consensus you believe this page is violating (if so, can you link)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep no policy violation given. The list is useful, and unfortunately I must admit I’ve confused many of these myself. ProcSock (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * page's creator has repeatedly added users who've removed themselves – Diffs, please. EEng 01:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this some kind of next-level trolling? You're the page creator and the diff that led to this was literally in the last 5 edits before this page was nominated for deletion.  diff 1, although I'm not sure why I'm bothering since you obviously know about it.  Note that yes, technically it's not repeatedly adding after the user has objected, but I think BilCat's point is clear enough.  SnowFire (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mispoke. I conflated "repeatedly added" and "added users who've removed themselves". I've struck out the "repeatedly". BilCat (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Plus, as BilCat graciously notes below, I didn't even understand that he was objecting. EEng 02:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is offensive and is not needed.--Bduke (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me add something to the above. I am a long time wikipedia editor and was until recently an admin. I am 82 and my memory is beginning to go and I do sometimes get confused. That is why I retired as an admin. However, I certainly would find it totally unacceptable if an editor on wikipedia told me I was confused. This should be deleted, and I am appalled that some editors think it is OK. However, a name change along the lines suggested by User:SmokeyJoe could be OK. --Bduke (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I sorry you were distressed, but I can only imagine that you're reacting to the page's title alone, without actually reading its opening text. No one is telling anyone that they're confused, and I would think that you of all people -- whose userpage goes to pains to Note that User:Bduke2 is not me -- would understand the use case. EEng 20:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not actually funny.  I can see a page that was strictly for similar usernames lexicographically for when two editors have confusingly similar usernames that was not a "humorous essay", and I could possibly see a humor page for Wikipedians who wish to self-identify as being confused in the sense of what-is-going-on, but combining the two is a bad idea, and the page creator putting other editors on the list over their objections while it maintains its current split identity is deeply not cool.  SnowFire (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically, he didn't understand my first edit summary where I removed my name as objecting to my name being listed. Once I objected clearly, he didn't re-add it. BilCat (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. However, to be completely accurate you should also strike users and substitute a user, since I believe you won't find any other case of re-adding (mistaken or not) after removal. EEng</b> 01:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this gaslighting? That term is overused but you literally just reverted two people who didn't want to be on the list, which is "re-adding after removal."  Why do you care whether someone is on the list or not?  What's so important to keep someone there?  SnowFire (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Cut it out with the trolling and gaslighting accusations. You removed yourself, which you have every right to do -- but along with a bunch of other people, which isn't your goddam business . I meant to restore only the others, but in the confusion of all the incoming mixed up commentary here I somehow managed to add you back as well . And now you've removed a whole bunch of other people again. Jesus, just calm down, will you? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 04:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Was not meant to be trolling, was a good faith removal. Responded in more detail on your talk page.  SnowFire (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, this is really getting out of hand. You seem to have read me as saying "Cut it out with the trolling, and with the gaslighting accusations"; but what I meant was "Cut it out with the trolling accusations and the gaslighting accusations". (A few posts up you asked Is this some kind of next-level trolling, remember? I think you now see that I really wasn't trolling, but I appreciate the compliment that you naturally assumed that I wouldn't indulge in just everyday, ordinary trolling, but rather cutting-edge, next-level trolling, whatever that might mean.) <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 05:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit: Eh, softened slightly on this. I think moving the article to a title that made clear it was strictly on overly-similar usernames would be fine.  However if not moved, delete it rather than leave it as is.  SnowFire (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is offensive. Doubley so, as several are deceased or blocked and cannot object themselves. Lists of editors that have any negative connotations should NEVER include those who cannot speak for themselves. Flyer 22 was never once confused. She was one of most accurate precise editors ever, all but one of the usernames listed were hers, and one would have to be pretty dense to confuse Sporting Flyer and Flyer 22. 174.212.211.159 (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep but significantly narrow the scope and rename. There isn't inherently anything wrong with a list of editors with similar usernames and editing topics, but the current list includes deceased users (bad), indeffed users (worse), and users who don't want to be there (yikes). Should be a light-hearted humor page, not something controversial. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't actually a humor page; it really is a resource for unconfusing yourself when you're not sure of who you're remembering, or whether this guy you're remembering is really some other guy, or what -- see WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Editors_who_may_be_confused. I don't know whose job it would be to remove deceased or blocked users, and anyway the archives are full of such people so confusion remains even after they're departed. And where do you get the idea there's anyone listed who doesn't want to be? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 02:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair. I didn't check the above claims. I don't think people should be listed if they request removal, and I think listing dead or indeffed editors is probably unwise - though I don't really care too strongly there. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. It actually works. I had a person tell me that they had me confused with The Other Guy and didn't realize it until they read this page. If someone is listed who doesn't want to be they can remove themselves. If they are re-added (other than by mistake) that's a behavioral problem which should be handled the normal way, starting with a warning. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm on the list, and find it both funny and useful. I honestly thought JzG and Guy were the same when I first edited. I'm somewhat surprised that some folks are offended by being on the list, but I think it's fair to be removed if you don't want to be on it. But I don't see any good reason to get rid of it wholesale. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: It’s useful. If you edit, you have no right to not be referenced. The page name is not quite right, I suggest “WP:Editors with similar names”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's not a humor page, it's actually useful. I confuse editors with similar usernames all the time and this page is a useful reference to remind me who is who. Frankly I don't think editors should remove themselves; if an editor has a username that is similar to another active editor's username, it's helpful to everyone else to list it. Levivich harass/hound 03:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I confess to having been confused about some of these people (and to being baffled at how people might confuse some of the others). Having a lighthearted page to point to when people accidentally do that in public provides a useful resource. As for the suggestion to rename this to make it non-humorous: trying to excise humor is both unnecessary in Wikipedia space, and pointless in this instance, because a large part of the humor is unavoidable in the juxtaposition of names rather than in the page title. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I was t suggesting it actually be renamed. My point is that if one dislikes the name, go to RM. You don’t delete the page due to the name. ProcSock (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There seems to be some confusion in this very thread. I don't think some editors picked up on the double meaning/pun of the title ("editors who are confused with each other [by others]", which is the actual page content, and the "list of editors who are confused [as in puzzled]"). Or maybe I am the one confused. — Goszei (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I agree. When EEng added me to the list (along with someone else whose name begins with "Bil"), after we began disagreement at Talk:Self-referential humor, I assumed it was a double entendre and they were calling me "confused" as an insult. if this isn't your intention (as you say above), how about renaming the page to something without this double meaning, like Editors with similar usernames? — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course it wasn't my intention to insult you; when I want to insult you, trust me you'll know it. What actually happened is exactly what one, in the full cleansing light of AGF, would imagine happened. You and I were in a conversation. I was thinking ... Bilorv, Bilorv ... oh yeah ... women and children first. Except that was actually Bilcat; you're this guy. So naturally I added you both to the inventory; little did I know I was sparking World War III.
 * I wonder, in light of our discussion you just linked, how you might feel about moving this page to WP:The title of this page is not "Editors who may be confused"?
 * <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 20:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well don't hold back on the insults on my account. You can call the page An exercise in pinging people by the hundreds until one of them kicks off as far as I'm concerned, but you've now been informed of the double meaning by numerous people in this discussion and cannot act like there is not a reasonable chance that someone you add to the list with a ping will think that you are calling them "confused". — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * you've now been informed of the double meaning – You're kidding, right? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 21:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're asking. (You could say that I may be confused.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * EEng didn't need to "be[] informed of" the second meaning, because the choice of title (with two meanings) was intentional -- it's a joke. --JBL (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So EEng's intention was to insult me. And to think I gave the full cleansing light of AGF to this situation... — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we're sort of back to "You're kidding, right?" Here's the situation: the name of the page was chosen as a play on words, taking advantage of the fact that "may be confused" can be read in two ways, with or without the implicit "[with another]".  Using a phrase that has two different meanings is a classic form of humorous word-play; "Take my wife ... please" is not dissimilar.  So, out of context, it is possible to read the page title as if it is insulting to the people listed on the page.  However, the actual content of the page is only consistent with the non-insulting meaning.  This is humorous because most people's first reading is the "wrong" one, making the disagreement a "twist".  (Again "Take my wife" is not dissimilar.)  Note, in particular, that this joke is not at the expense of anyone listed!  (There is a second layer of the joke at the bottom, involving Roxy the dog and SmokeyJoe, in which they are the butts of the joke, turning the meaning back around.  But both of whom have added themselves.) --JBL (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This can't actually be happening. Pardon me while I go throw myself off a cliff. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 03:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It's like a massive book written in ink that shan't be erased, devoured or effed (with, around, over, up or off); it's not just the coolest, not just the best...it's just ineffable! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well eff you too, Hulk. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 20:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's tagged "humorous" because of the pun in the title; those who object on such grounds are mostly just showing they don't have a sense of humor.  This page is genuinely useful; as I wrote last time, here is the use-case: I come across an edit by SNUGGUMS, in the process of which I become confused about SNUGGUMS versus Snooganssnoogans; however, not being able to remember how to spell Snooganssnoogans, I am unable to search directly for them. This page allows reverse look-up by the editor you're confused about.  Is this something that will happen to me frequently?  No.  But is it something that could occasionally be of use to me?  Yes. --JBL (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It's a humorous page, but it could use a cleanup .Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's useful, there are definitely some users with similar names I have been tripped up by that the list has helped clarify. Not opposed to a rename if lots of people are offended... I find it funny, but I've never been on the receiving end of EEng's commentary-- and I don't want to be. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as ha ha only serious <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. As long as editors can remove themselves from the listing (which, despite some noise here, they can), then there is no policy or guideline being violated. Some editors may not find it funny. Some editors just dislike anything that is or attempts to be funny. But those rationales fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so I don't like those rationales. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:USEFUL is given as an argument to avoid for articles, but in project space usefulness is a valid reason to keep. I've added to this list myself and use it to double check I've got the right user when I see a name in discussions. I see no policy based reason to delete. It's already been established that the creator of the essay has not, in fact, been repeatedly added users against their wishes. That a couple of editors have apparently found the title ageist may mean that the long history of page moves may need to be added to, but that's not a reason for deletion either. P-K3 (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.