Also, we have no way to know if that person is indeed from that company - it could be someone trying to give them a bad reputation. I think the blocks were completely in order.
mboverload
On 6/18/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
I don't know how common this is:
# 01:30, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Shout magazine (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company) # 01:02, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Shi star entertainment (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company) # 21:04, June 18, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "ParsInternet (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Username (name of existing company)) # 00:59, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Hammond Publishing (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company)
Given that we probably want people to identify who they work for, especially when editing articles where this is relevant, is it a good idea to block company accounts without any edits on sight?
Yes. Firstly, it's an unacceptable username; secondly, it could be seen as a "group account"; thirdly, it could be being used for impersonation.
If so, perhaps we should at least modify the talk plage template to indicate to the user how they can put the company information on their user page? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammond_Publishing for an example of the current template.
People identifying the company they work for shouldn't be editing the article on that company, per [[WP:AUTO]] and [[WP:CORP]].
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l