Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Ghey?

Why is it blacklisted? Boxhead259 (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Most likely because of it is a misspelling of "Gay". We prefer you to use the actual word, and not end up being laughed at for misspelling a simple word. Phearson (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerking

Is there a formal process to apply to be a non-bot clerk? Phearson (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There isnt a formal process. Feel free to assist, but try to stick to the most obvious calls for awhile and try not to remove reports until you have a firm grasp of it. Also, a clerk would probably be really helpful on Wikipedia:UAA/HP. It often gets neglected (by me, and others).--v/r - TP 21:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Official representatives

When choosing a username, are individuals officially representing a notable person allowed to edit under the subject's username? For example, if I was an artist (let's call me "Ima Vixen") and I had asked my personal assistant to perform all of the edits on my behalf, could the assistant register the username "Ima Vixen" assuming it was confirmed via OTRS? Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Have I stumped everyone or is this talk page just super quiet? There is a bit of urgency behind the question, so I'll go with my gut (i.e. the representative needs to create their own account) if there is no further input. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
It's just uber quiet in here. I think you've made the right call.--v/r - TP 16:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Cheers for that. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah; although it's not quite the same thing, we had a rather nasty issue with a user using the real name of someone else in their username, which resulted in her name being splayed across Google through no fault of her own. The example will go unmentioned, but suffice to say it made it readily apparent that it made sense not to allow people to use famous peoples' names in their username, even if they aren't pretending to be that person. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I see it as impersonation. Bad. In my view if they want to open an account, use your own name or a nickname or whatever is permissible, then in your user page state your COI and reasoning up-front. My opinion only of course. -- Alexf(talk) 20:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I can and do automatically block those, since they are impersonations of the real owner of that name. If CharlesBigstar wants to edit as User:CharlesBigstar he is welcome; but some assistant, agent, flack or whatever doing so under his name is fraught with so many potential troubles that I don't understand how anybody thought it could ever be deemed kosher in the first place. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Holding pen rules

Do we have any standing Holding Pen rules? How about timelines? I usually work UAA but seldom HP. Seeing the messages about backlogs I'll try to help here too, but as I do not want to trample on other admins/clerks working the case, when there is a note about somebody "discussing with user", should we block marginal (bad) names after a week or so? Should we clear (remove) the listing for marginal (maybe ok) names after a week or so? What should be the wait on "wait until the user edits"? If we don't set some rules and max or common wait time (if we already have them, I've missed them), then how do we know when it is ok to either block or remove from the list? I'd say if a username is in enough doubt to be in the holding pen, 7 or maybe 10 days should be plenty of time to make a hard decision and clear it one way or another. Else they sit here forever. I am open to suggestions, or a pointer to where this has been discussed before. Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 20:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

We usually monitor over a month. If there is a "discussing with user" or "wait until user edits" and after 30 days the account looks stale, I tend to ignore them. If the user edits but ignores the warning about thier username, I block. If they change their username, I remove it. That's generally my rules for the HP, but I rarely work it.--v/r - TP 23:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The sign in the top of the page says 7 days, but I have seen most names are left way longer than that. -- Alexf(talk) 18:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's an odd thing. Both this subject and the one currently at the bottom of the page have come up here recently. For some reason the bot archived both threads to Archive 2, with older material, instead of Archive 3.
Anyway, the reason stuff sits in the holding pen so long is that people throw all sorts of reports in there and never follow up. Anything older than seven days may be closed. You won't be stepping on anyones toes if you choose to help out. Please go right ahead, I've been doing the majority of the closings the last few months, every time I go out of town or whatever they get backed up. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a question??

I am a member of the Welcoming Committee and I noticed User:Mobile golden number and they seem to be promotional of a company. I couldn't figure out where to put this so I figured it was safe idea to put it here verus mess up some format something I don't understand. :) Could someone check it out? Thanx! ReelAngelGirl (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The user has been blocked. You should post questionable/spammy user names at WP:UAA. Please read the instructions here. -- Alexf(talk) 21:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle issue?

I use Twinkle to add entries to WP:UAA, but it adds new entries to the top of the user reported section - I thought the general consensus was to add new entries to lists at the bottom, in the same style that Helperbot adds its new entries to the bottom of the bot reported section? Do users who don't use Twinkle for reporting add new entries to the top or bottom of this list? Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 00:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't use Twinkle, and I add stuff to the bottom unless there are instructions to add it to the top (as with WP:AFD and WP:RFPP).
In practice, it doesn't really matter on this page. As an admin, I scan the whole list anyway and pick one at random that someone hasn't already addressed. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Noob?

I wonder if it is possible to add "noob" to the blacklist. I am suggesting this, as it is a derogatory term for "newbie" and has been used in some disruptive usernames. It is not exactly a violation in itself, but there are many others that has many false positives yet are in the blacklist as well. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am personally of the opinion that the blacklist needs to be made shorter, not longer. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I think "noob" is often used in a humorous self-defecating manner. Not worthy of blacklisting.--v/r - TP 20:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Self-defecating? Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I hate it when that happens. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Beeblebrox, the blacklist needs to be shorter --Guerillero | My Talk 21:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Wow, you guys show up quick when poop is involved.--v/r - TP 21:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please be careful...

Just a friendly reminder to people in general to be careful not to change ore remove the header for this page or the sub-page, as it prevents the helper bots from working. Thanks.  An optimist on the run! 22:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

how to handle spammers

In the past I have advocated taking a very hard line with spammers, but over time I have come to see a downside to this practice. The way most of us have tradtitionally handled a user who created an account with a company or group name and then proceeded to write about said company or group is to hardblock them and give them the long {{uw-spamublock}} block notice. If all you ever do is block users this seems like a good way to proceed, but if you also work with unblock requests the problem becomes apparent: Such blocks are very often appealed, and it almost always goes something like this: "I was just trying to add factual information about this company. I didn't know about the rules for usernames. Please unblock me. Here is some other non-infringing name I've thought up." And then a reviewing admin will come by and slap the {{coiq}} template down and/or pepper them with questions about what they would do if they were unblocked. Eventually the user either makes various promises to behave or gives up entirely. This scenario plays out multiple times every single day. Keep an eye on Category:Requests for unblock for a day or two and you will see just how often. I have developed a different, simpler approach recently that I believe works better.

In this way the message is sent that they absolutely cannot use a group name, and they are advised of the policy on conflicts of interest. No muss, no fuss, no need to tie up admins in order to end up in exactly the same place, and there is even the chance that they will become productive contributors. If they return to spamming, they can be blocked again easily enough. This approach saves time and is less bitey. I know, who cares if we bite spammers, right? Over time I have come to realize that the majority of spammers are really just like any other new users, they just don't know how this works and they think they can just add anything they want. Once you explain to them that this isn't the case they usually stop. The soft blocked demonstrates that we take the issue seriously but allowing them to create a new account and try editing again, this time having been informed of WP:COI, shows them that if they can learn to work within some fairly simple boundaries they can still contribute. I'm not suggesting this approach be made an official policy or anything, just thought it was worth mentioning to the UAA regulars as a way to be friendlier and reduce the workload on unblock reviewers. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. I am usually hard on spammers, and spamublock them when they are blatant. Didn't I say I hate spammers? I do. I will take your approach for the ones that seem unclear on the practice (and you are correct that most do), and will leave the practice in place for the blatant spammers, usually from China that just post a bunch of links and blatant ads. To the ones that write an article about their company I will change to using softblock for a while and see how it goes. Maybe you are right. -- Alexf(talk) 11:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
When blocking spammers, I try to see if what they posted was merely misguided or not. For people like User:Encontext or someone who's a repeat offender and/or posting copyvios after a warning, a spamblock is perfectly fine, but I see the upside in your idea. I'll try to go a little easier for a while too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed Beeblebrox - for someone who just creates a CORPNAME style account, and who then creates either a userpage or artle that attempts to look like an encyclopedia article (aka "stealthy advertising") I will almost always use softerblock. The user then knows the rules and creates a new account that doesn't represent a company and hopefully doesn't spam about the company again. Using User:Animum/easyblock.js tag PromoSofter makes blocking and notifying the account a one step process. I would only use hardblocks for blatant "click me now to buy" or repeat-offenders.  7  06:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Indian slangs to add to the blacklist

I wanted to say that actually there are some username like Chuto, Chodaboy57 and Chodaboy69000 which contain the word chud, chut, choda, chota, chudo, chudo which stands for fuck in English. All these are Hindi words written in English and I wanted to add them to the blacklist.--Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 16:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That's actually come up at least once (User:Chuth), so I'd support that. An admin better at regex than I should probably add that, though; put it right here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, yes there's chuth and chudh too. Okay, I had already got the permission from DeltaQuad. But, only if I was an admin.--Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 06:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Nobody was doing so made request.--Ankit Maity TalkContribs 15:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs).--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Consistency, please?

I'm a fairly common contributor here recently, but it gets frustrating when virtually identical reports get different results based on what admin happens to come by. Some examples from the last few days:

What's different about the last one? I have no idea; my best guess is that different admins have different ideas of what constitutes a username that requires administrator attention. The instructions say this is the right place when:

Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is generally not permitted, and users who adopt such a username may be blocked if their editing behavior appears to be promotional.

I see two problems here:

  • Referring something to WP:COIN is useless as nothing happens there (example).
  • I honestly don't know if/when to report users/usernames here when identical reports produce different results.

Can we get some more detailed guidelines, either for reporters or for admins? Thanks! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a problem in that this page seems to be picking up all the conflict of interest stuff, and forcing them to change username seems to be suboptimal. If anything I'd rather know what people's biases are. CorpFoo being forced to change name to MrBah doesn't stop them representing Foo, it just makes it harder to identify. We need a robust procedure for handling PR spam and this isn't it. Secretlondon (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
However, that's not what the instructions say, and that's not what other admins are doing.
My issue isn't whether these reports result in blocks or forced username changes—it's the inconsistent handling of these reports. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with you. I'm inclined to agree with Secretlondon, but nonetheless I'd say that we need to have a uniform procedure in place for how to deal with usernames reported here.--Slon02 (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree It's impossible to know that those are the exact same reports without seeing the report. For example, someone may create a account name that says "Sporkapotomuscorp" that seems unambigous. Except that Sporkapotomus isnt a corporation and doesn't exist. You have the know the context of these reports. Besides, the reason that corp accounts are blocked is not because of COI. They get blocked because Wikipedia's license requires contributions to be able to be attributed to a single person. Corp and group accounts do not comply with our license for content contribution. COI is a secondary reason.--v/r - TP 16:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Followed users

Hi all. Following a village pump proposal discussion I implemented a new tool Followed users which lets you view the most recent edit by a selected list of users that you follow. One important application of this raised by User:Danger is to follow abandoned accounts with bad usernames (e.g. corporate/institutional accounts) to make sure they stay abandoned. I'd like to get more people to try it out and let me know at my talk page if you find it useful or have suggestions/problems. Thanks! Dcoetzee 02:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

They generally get blocked currently or made to rename. I can't think of many that have just become dormant.Secretlondon (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems like a tool that could have good uses, but also one that could be used in ways that are less than desirable. I hope those less than desirable ways don't end up outweighing the good. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Secretlondon, it doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Check Archive 2 of this page for User:Xulonpress for an example. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC on COI

Seeing as we seem to get an awful lot of COI stuff here people might be interested in the following RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI. Secretlondon (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

?????

Why is vote unacceptable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.148.197 (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Your question is not clear. If you are asking about voting in Wikipedia, even though this is not the proper place to ask, you can read why we prefer consensus to voting: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. -- -Alexf(talk) 18:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is it on the blacklist. 122.49.160.125 (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Official-sounding username?

Most of the username policy focuses on commercial promotion. Would having a title like admin qualify? Such as this user admin182 (talk · contribs) -- MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

First criteria on the list for inappropriate name types: "Misleading". This totally qualifies (although he looks likes a VOA anyway, so a block should be arriving shortly regardless...) Yunshui 雲‍水 13:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A possible violation to the Username policy

An IP editor recently reported a possible violation of the username policy to User:Headbomb on his talk page. Headbomb suggested that the IP report it but IMO the reporting process is less than easy to follow for a new editor. So I am reporting it here for action if appropriate. The edit can be seen here with the username visible. Its probably not an issue though since its a one time edit with no user page or talk page. 71.163.243.232 (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Urine false positive

Template:Non-administrator observation

Please see: Template talk:Non-administrator observation#What to do with this template. Thanks,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Requirement for recent (or any edits)

Note: Moved from UAA page for further discussion on how/when to require recent edits and whether or not blatantly obvious corpnames should be blocked prior to first edit.  7  05:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the username itself is promotional. The rule is that a username can't represent an organisation. However, he only edited twice, and that was six months ago, Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you kidding me ? how about implying multiple users ? that's not a violation ? Mlpearc Public (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
It's stale. Secretlondon (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
IMHO staleness is a relevant factor for vandalism (recent/old) but not for usernames. If a username is a vio then it's a vio, regardless of when/if they have edited.  7  06:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If staleness isn' relevant for usernames, why is there an option for it in the template arguments? Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the {{UAA|stale}} template needs a fresh look. Mlpearc (powwow) 19:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
It's the username policy Secretlondon (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, UAA prefers but does not require recent edits and has exclusions for blantly obvious names regardless of edits. In the case above I agree it's not necessarily blatant.  7  00:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
And our blocking policy is focused on blocks being preventive, not punitive. Is there really any harm caused by not blocking an account that will in all likelihood never edit again? We're not here to block people- we're here to minimize disruption to Wikipedia.--Slon02 (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree completely, prevent the user from editing before they edit if their names are blatanly obvious, rather than waiting for them to edit to punsish them after their blatantly obvious username violations have been confirmed by recent edits. Perhaps we should move this to the talk page. We've moved beyond talking about this one account and are moving into the fine tuning or interpretation of the policy.  7  02:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Confusing

I just came across a new contributor (unable to parse) (talk · contribs). Does that fall into the scope of "confusing" in the username policy? - Pointillist (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, I think. Secretlondon (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've left a {{Uw-username}} on the user's talk page. - Pointillist (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
And the contributor has requested a change which has been actioned successfully by MBisanz . Thanks again, everyone. - Pointillist (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Bot page protection

A couple of days ago User:Nyttend protected the bot page so that only confirmed editors can edit it. This would mean that if your username is listed here it's very likely that you wouldn't be able to defend yourself. It's also not been attacked by anyone or done anything to indicate that it needed to be protected. This was done without any discussion as far as I can see. I propose that we unprotect it. Any thoughts? Secretlondon (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I've unprotected. While I'm not a frequent visitor here, I've never seen users come here to defend their names; I figured that would always be done at user talk pages. I thought that this page was used in a manner comparable to WP:AIV, which has a semiprotected bot section. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - I've not seen anyone defend themselves either but I think they should be able to - discussions always take place here. It's never been attacked that I've noticed so it doesn't need to be preemptively protected. Secretlondon (talk)

Clarifying the username policy

Just wanted to cross link to my comment on WP:AN and ask editors and admin who frequent UAA to provide their input to policy changes ongoing at WP:ROLE and WT:U.  7  00:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

What should practice be?

So following all the drama on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Orange_Mike and the correct claims that practice here doesn't follow policy - what should we do with all these COI ones? We just seem to be letting them build up. Should we be sticking them in the holding pen? Secretlondon (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Once again backlogged with assumptions of bad faith

I know I'm constantly moaning about how UAA is basically a game of whack a mole, but seriously, look at that backlog and how few of the names on it are really blatant violations.

  • Using your pseudonym does not constitute a username violation, even if you've written an autobiography.
  • Using the name of a sports team does not constitute a username violation, even if you've edited their article. This simply suggests the user is a fan, not a representative.
  • Outing yourself as "person X from company Y" is not a username violation, it is however a matter for WP:COIN if you edit company Y related articles.
  • Having the name of a product somewhere in your username does not necessarily mean you're supporting that product.

Also I'm just not sure if those apparent role accounts like Hmdcjpj (talk · contribs) (for "Hashmat Medical & Dental College JPJ") which just look like strings of nonsense when you don't know the context should be instablocked. Only ones which are blatantly promotional or blatantly role accounts upon first sight. Does WP:RFCN not still exist? - filelakeshoe 13:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree entirely, including your essay. I do instantly block very profane usernames, and obvious spammers (I do not have any tolerance for spammers and we seem to be getting many lately from India and China that think this is their blog or facebook page}. I do agree we have too many reports that should not be on UAA at all. I am discounting bot's false-positives in this as thise are obvious and easily removed. People should read the policy first and should read and understand the big colored banner on UAA itself to see what we need. Let's cut down on the marginal stuff. It it is not blatant, it does not belong at UAA. -- Alexf(talk) 14:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Username vs. edits

UAA seems to get alot of traffic from people reporting accounts editing promotionally. I hate to nitpick about this, but this noticeboard I've always understood to be for username violations. If an account is editing promotionally but the username itself is not promotional I've always understood that the report should go to WP:AIV (with the exception of usernames that appear to be company/group/organization names, which can go to either). Do I have this right, or is UAA actually the place for reporting promotion-only accounts? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If the username isn't promotional we are not interested. We get a lot false reports here. Secretlondon (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
That is correct. As the UAA page says:
  • 1. is clearly inappropriate and a blatant violation of the username policy, and
  • 2. has made recent edits (within the last 2–3 weeks at the outside). Accounts that haven't edited in 3 weeks or more should not be reported.
If it is not blatant (including clearly a connection between the name and a product or spam), it does not belong in UAA. -- Alexf(talk) 12:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF really is dead here.

Some admins are being far too harsh instablocking people here. Recently blocked User:Uncommon Grace signed up with a title of something they'd created as their username. My username is also the title of something I've created. The fact that they were trying to promote it with their first edit and I wasn't should not be the deciding factor on whether this is an inappropriate username, and I really don't think that's a good reason to instantly block someone (hardblock, I might add) after one edit. We normally don't block vandals who insert "penis" into articles until they've done it five times.

Rather than another vain attempt at reminding people about WP:AGF and how this kind of slap happy blocking damages Wikipedia, I suggest we change the text of UAA so that it no longer claims to be "only for blatant violations of the username policy". What UAA actually is now is conflict of interest and spam noticeboard II where twinklers can report any spam/COI account with a slight resemblence to whatever they're promoting in the username, and rather than acting with restraint and giving warnings and so on, admins are allowed to just instantly indefinitely hardblock users for one edit. Very few of the accounts blocked here are actually blocked because of their username.

I feel like I wasted my time today working on the backlog here and judging each report according to whether it was a blatant violation of username policy. I also think, as with CSD, when one admin disagrees that a name is a blatant violation, a second admin should not then be able to just block the user. - filelakeshoe 23:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Reality check for you: Uncommon Grace (talk · contribs)'s only edits (3) were in the creation of an advertising page for a self-published book of that title. The name was not merely promotional, it was self-evidently so. That you feel that particular form of abuse of Wikipedia shouldn't be discouraged makes me think that yes, you are wasting time on this noticeboard -- except it wouldn't be your time being wasted, it'd be those of people trying to clean up spam, blatantly inappropriate names, non-editor accounts, and pages which confuse Wikipedia with a free webhosting service. You're welcome to "assume good faith" despite actual evidence to the contrary, but that only tells me that you don't actually understand what WP:AGF means. --Calton | Talk 23:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying it shouldn't be discouraged, I'm all for deleting the spam pages and warning the users, I'm not for instahardblocking them based on one edit. We don't do that anywhere except when a user is reported here, which is ridiculous, and I'm sure it's contrary to the blocking policy. I think you, like many users here, fail to assume good faith. It is still conceivable that a user who creates a drive-by spam article might later contribute something to the project when they come to understand what it is for, but with all their IPs being blocked they almost certainly won't. - filelakeshoe 08:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Your over-applying WP:AGF here. Way over-applying it. Just because the rest of us don't fall at the extreme end of the spectrum doesn't mean we WP:ABF.--v/r - TP 23:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why users reported here can be shot on sight but we somehow attempt to rehabilitate users who insert "penis" into articles or create spam pages without matching usernames. The latter approach makes sense to me. Wikipedia is daunting enough to the uninitiated. - filelakeshoe 08:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
You're not going to get an answer for two reasons: 1) It's obvious no answer is going to be acceptable to you, and 2) None of us have to answer to you. If you choose to be lenient, that's your choice. Your not the King of UAA though (Salvio has that title) and as long as we're not abusing or blatantly ignoring the letter of the username policy, you can just swallow your complaints. Your approach here is completely wrong. #Once_again_backlogged_with_assumptions_of_bad_faith you make a halfway decent argument worth listening to, but when you just come out and start bashing others then I'm fixing to just ignore you. Maybe things have changed since your last big editing period back in 2008 (the month after you were granted sysop)? I'm not usually this much of a dick, but you're getting what you're dishing out.--v/r - TP 12:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Email addresses

I apologise for adding email address usernames, as I thought usernames weren't allowed to contain email addresses--Mjs1991 (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

But then again looking at Username policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy/Archive_15#E-mail_addresses it mentions they are not allowed--Mjs1991 (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy/Archive_17#.22Usernames_that_predate_this_policy_are_not_in_violation_of_it.22 for the rule of reason. These are inactive, non-disruptive accounts. MBisanz talk 02:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive230#Username_issue_-_grandfather_rights.3F is very recent and makes the point very clearly that grandfathered names are permitted. MBisanz talk 02:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Old?

I was looking at the creation log of 2010-2011, and there is a fair amount of unreported usernames with either promotional material in the name or on their page, and usernames with swearing in it. However, I was just wondering if usernames which are that old can be reported or not?--Mjs1991 (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No. From this noticeboard's guidelines: "Do not report a username which has not made recent edits (within the last 2-3 weeks at the outside)." Further, per the username policy (WP:IU): "it is preferable that you report users to these noticeboards only when they have made at least one recent edit." It is generally believed that transgressive usernames with edits more than a few weeks old are unlikely to be used again. Thus, acting on them would clog blocks logs, steal administrators' time, etc. Now, if you come across some disgusting/harassing attack name or one that divulges significant personal information, report it to Special:EmailUser/Oversight—but you'd be hard-pressed to find any such old name that went unnoticed. Best, NTox · talk 21:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Category rename

There's been a suggestion to rename Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over to Category:Wikipedian usernames over which editors have expressed concern per the better grammar involved. I wouldn't mind the move - though I do know that a wider discussion may be warranted. I've started a CFD here about it. Avicennasis @ 04:36, 12 Sivan 5772 / 04:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Providing a quick link for the record: the outcome is Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues. – Fayenatic London 12:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Offensive names of blocked editors

I recently noticed that a user with an exceptionally offensive username had been indefinitrly blocked as a vandalism-only account. I reported the username to this board for attention, but my report was removed by a bot since the account was already blocked. Is there any procedure for reporting offensive names if the account is already blocked? RolandR (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Send a note to Special:EmailUser/Oversight to have it removed from public logs. Best, NTox · talk 00:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk request

Does anyone have an objection if I do some clerking here and at WP:UAA/HP. I'm only planning to do the following at this stage:

  1. Responding with "wait/stale" (all the types listed) (I'm happy not to tag (if told) and wait for an admin to tell me I'm ready to make more, possibly difficult judgements).
  2. Moving "wait/stale" (all the types listed) to WP:UAA/HP.
  3. Responding with Reports merged.
  4. Responding with User has requested a change in username.
  5. Responding with "Stale: This account has not been used in the last 2-3 weeks."
  6. Responding with "No promotional edits. Usernames in the form of a company, organization, web address, product, or group are usually blocked only if the user has made promotional edits. Consider asking the user to rename their account or to create a new one." Only when there are no edits or very few which are obviously not promotional; and I will leave the request on their talk page myself.
  7. I won't decline for any other reason unless an admin tells me I'm ready to make more, possibly difficult judgements.
  8. Leaving Template:uw-uaa on user pages, where an admin has not already done so.
  9. I won't remove any (except moving them to UAA/HP), I'll leave that to an admin so my reponses can be checked.
  10. Do you want me to use Template:nac so it's clear that I'm not an admin?

Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The idea of UAA clerking has had an interesting history; you may enjoy reading some of the old discussions about the concept in the archives of this talk page. Ultimately, the proposal for a formalized process has never achieved a prevailing consensus, which is perhaps how it should be. [1] My own opinion is that some informal help every now and again should not be a problem as long as it is done with a significant dose of reason and common sense. (What we would want to avoid is editors who are more interested in trying to 'feel like administrators' than solve actual problems). What I tend to do, as a non-administrator, is tidy up the holding pen and CAT:UAA; usually I leave the reports themselves to administrators (despite my opinions) since username violations are incredibly interpretive. There is no doubting, however, that this noticeboard is understaffed so I have on occasion commented on reports if I am sure that an administrator would comment the same way. NTox · talk 00:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I've absolutely no problem with non-admins commenting. The admins all respond differently anyway! The clerking would be useful - often we can't see why a name is promotional as reporters leave the bare minimum of information - saying that ABC edited ABC Corp would be useful. We do get stale ones or ones that haven't edited. Sometimes it's right to block one that hasn't edited if it would be blocked as soon as it edited, regardless of what/how it edited. You kinda know them if you see them - for me it's the really obscene. Secretlondon (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I think wait can be contested. People will regularly block ones I've classed as wait, and the other way round. If they stay there for a while (24 hours?) they are okay to move. I think another useful thing would be to handle promo userpages of accounts that have been flagged up as promo names. Generally they have a spam article which needs dealing with. Secretlondon (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding user pages do you mean tagging with WP:CSD#G11? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
This has been discussed multiple times in the past, when the proposal to formalise the role of clerks was first put forward — cf. Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention/Archive_2#Appropriate roles/actions for non-admins —. My opinion since then has not changed: I welcome non-admin clerks and appreciate their help, but I believe their involvement should be limited strictly to non-controversial tasks: such as removing false positives, reports declined by an admin, blocked usernames, the occasional no-brainer non-violation, and commenting on reports, because their input is quite valuable; however, in my opinion, they should not decline reports, unless it's a very clear-cut case and, especially, should not remove a report immediately after declining it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
So Salvio do you have any problems with my list (as long as I don't move/delete anything I mark [and I didn't intent to])? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
No comment on anything else, but as I've said elsewhere, Template:Nac is for deletion discussions, not any type of non-admin closure. The page linked to on the template, Wikipedia:Non-admin closure, refers to XfD. Acalamari 13:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Block review of watchubot

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Watchubot_block_review may be of interest re: the blocking of names ending in -bot. Secretlondon (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal that would impact this noticeboard

There is an ongoing discussion about the manner in which promotional usernames should be blocked. Please participate at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC - Handling promotional usernames to help reach a consensus. NTox · talk 02:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Also see this RfC which is more specific in nature. NTox · talk 00:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Admins should kindly take a look from time to time at the usernames listed at CAT:UAA. Electric Catfish 23:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That is already stated on the page. "Note: Administrators should also kindly consider usernames listed at Filter 149, Filter 188, Filter 354, WP:UAA/HP and CAT:UAA." -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 06:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict with bot

I have found that I am very regularly edit conflicting with the bot here. If I decide not to block the user but to warn them, I will typically give the warning, then go back to UAA to put the discussion with user template on the request. However, the bot, seeing my warning, will post its helpful 'possible username issue' note. I will often conflict with the bot; it's posted its note telling me that there might be an issue, which it has only done because I warned the user - once or twice is fine, but it happens almost every time I choose to warn a user. Is there a way to avoid this? Or could the bot operate slightly differently? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

When this was happening with {{unsigned}} at the help desk, I believe we simply asked the bot operator to alter the timing—if it's happening consistently at say, 30 seconds out, ask the bot operator for a 30 second additional window or some other measure for this specific type of edit by the bot. You can contact HBC AIV helperbot7's human at User talk:Wimt.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I could try reducing the frequency that the bot checks UAA. That would slow down the bot, although of course it would also mean any blocked usernames would take longer to be removed. I'm happy to try it if you'd like and we could see whether it helps at all (and whether the additional delay would be annoying)? Will (aka Wimt) 19:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Will. That might be a good thing to try. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator_attention/Archive_4&oldid=1151011336"