User talk:Alphachimp

Archives
Topic Index (Updated Daily) May 2005 - April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007

[edit] E-mail

I sent you an e-mail. Did you receive it? --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I've responded. alphachimp 17:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, something has to be done about him. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make contact with me

Make contact with me

[edit] Disallowed usernames

Hello again. I see from a comment above that you are involved with some functionality that blocks inappropriate usernames from being created. I'm having some promblems that may be related. While working at WP:ACC again, I tried to fill several of the newest requests, but every time got a message saying "The username you have chosen is disallowed because it contains some forbidden string, such as an offensive word." But the usernames didn't seem offensive, they were:

• 555michael
• cybernerd1999
• scottlaverdiere
• DeathbyWiki
• jawdrops

It seems that every username is being denied. Do you know what is going on? jwillbur^talk 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it seems to be fixed now. jwillbur^talk 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

ugh. It looks like it was dealt with. alphachimp 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (VP) Fix Users list.

It is corrupt. Can you fix it? → p00rleno (lvl 85) ←ROCKS^C_RS 17:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I really have no idea how to. Try asking Amidaniel (talk • contribs) or Betacommand (talk • contribs) alphachimp 04:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your JS

there is a boug in your quickblock, change addTab('javascript:('+QuickBlock+')("31 hours","Blocked for 31 hours due to recent vandalism. If this is a shared address, please register an account to avoid collateral damage.",1,1)','31ao','p-block-31h'); to addTab('javascript:('+QuickBlock+')("31 hours","Blocked for 31 hours due to recent vandalism. If this is a shared address, please register an account to avoid collateral damage.",1,0)','31ao','p-block-31h'); etc... _→AzaToth 17:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll get right on that. What's the issue with it? alphachimp 04:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin actions

No...I have nothing against you, nor any knowledge of your actions. I'm just remarking on that because it's not the first time SBHarris has been 'up against an admin' on one of their calls. I have been as well, a few times.

Saying that, I have the utmost respect for good admins. I'm an admin over at another site, wrangling ~85000 users (about 1000 active) and I know it's a difficult and thankless job. However the system here is, in my considered and experienced opinion, very broken in regards to keeping admin actions within the spirit and letter of the 'law' (policy and guidelines and processes) consistently. I've been involved in a number of cases where admins just weren't being fair, reasonable, responsible, and/or respectful of others volunteering their time, and that's just not right.

And so, my (still hate this name) WPAdminWatch idea is a meager and not-fully-thought-out concept to try and fix a broken system. Ideally it would fix itself without such a thing, but I'm just not seeing process in that regard (an example...if a newbie has a dispute with an admin being unfair and breaking rules, how does he know what steps to take to correct that? How many hours would you expect him to put in to work on correcting it? At all stages is the admin in question required to participate in dispute resolution procedures?). Basically, dispute resolution and dealing with admins is balanced so heavily against the 'little guy' that admins too often have free reign in their actions, knowing that it's unlikely someone will expend the massive effort needed to get the situation solved.

Anyway, I reiterate...I have a healthy respect for admins in general. In certain cases, however, individual admins have acted poorly and gotten away with it scot-free, and that needs to be dealt with by changing the way that works. --Kickstart70-T-C 09:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "Dildo"

I think we should be really careful with adding names to the username blacklist. Yes, usernames with "dildo" in them usually refer to sexual acts, but the term itself is not inherently bad, IMHO, and I think we should only list really clear-cut cases. I can certainly see that others will disagree with me in this case tho, so we probably should move the discussion to MediaWiki talk:Usernameblacklist (or maybe even to WT:U). --Conti|✉ 15:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)