Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New username

Hello! I'm unsure where to place this request. I like my username, but I like another much more -- that's part of the problem (i.e., it belongs to someone else). However, that user also appears to be inactive, having last edited in January, and has noted as much on their user pages. So, my question is: is it possible to appropriate that user name as my own and edit under it hereafter? If you cannot provide guidance, I would appreciate being pointed in the right direction. Thanks. Quizatz Haderach 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, GFDL requirements prevent us from giving you the name of an existing users if they have made any contributions. See WP:USURP for more information. The only way you can get that name would be if User:Quizimodo requested a rename, thus freeing up that name. Then you could request a rename to that name. ^(H) 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! So, I cannot request to 'usurp' that account, even if the editor appears to have departed (e.g., explicitly indicated on their talk page)? Do you suppose I should even try to request it, and/or would there be any utility in me e-mailing the 'usurped' editor? Quizatz Haderach 00:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No chance at all, our licensing requirements require that we attribute all contributions to their source. If you took his name it would appear that his contributions were done by you. They will certainly refuse you at WP:USURP. Your only chance it to e-mail the guy and ask him to request a rename to free up the name. ^(H) 00:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK - I've since asked this same question at the 'usurp' talk page, and will e-mail that editor. Keep your legs crossed. :) Thanks! Quizatz Haderach 00:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ.. usernames

We're getting a number of them this evening (UTC). It's suspected that they are probably the same user. At least one of them got blocked with ACB so if they are using the same IP that should stop it. Secretlondon 22:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I thought you were just really frustrated by usernames when I saw the title for this section. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about domain name reporting

The bot can now look up names that look like a domain name to see if there is an HTTP server running. If it cannot connect to a server its response code is 5**. The bot has an option to not report name on a pattern unless it can find the server.

What do people think, should the bot suppress reports on names that look like domain names but do not connect when the bot opens an HTTP connection? It will miss things like "free poker.com" if the real url is "freepoker.com", so that is the only reason that the bot should report names it could not connect to as a domain. On the other hand it will guarantee that any domain name reported will in fact have a server. What do people think? Report all domain like names, or only this who have an HTTP server running the domain that is literally described by the name? ^(H) 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you set it to report all names with ".com", but only other domain names if there's a website at the other end? Mangojuice^talk 20:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldnt that give an option to evade detection? They will just let requests from the bot's IP to go unanswered. (Thats just a technicality, I doubt people would ever go to such lengths!) --soum ^talk 07:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as we are stuffing beans up our nose, a clever vandal could also use it to determine my IP. Soumyasch, it would only stop the "Top Level Domain" pattern, if the name violates other rules, it will still get a report. Mango, I can make it report all .coms, but only other domains if there is a connection. It will still do the lookup on both, but will suppress the output on non .com names it cannot connect to. If that indeed the consensus I can do that. ^(H) 13:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have done that now[1]. ^(H) 15:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

New Bot

What does anyone think about a new bot to remove blocked usernames here. Instead of using the AIV helperbots then it could User:TSM UFA helperbot (or if you wanted it to be the same as H's you could replace the TSM with HBC), the source code could be exactly the same but if their was a new bot it would avoid new users getting confused about the name of the bot editing a different page rather than WP:AIV. The Sunshine Man 11:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting proposal, and I fully understand your point, but I really don't think it matters what the name of the bot is called, it does exactly the same job, and it seems much easier having one set (the AIV helperbots) so modifications only have to be made to that set rather than the UFA bots as well (i.e. When improvements are made, the source codes would have to be changed for both sets of bots as well). I personally think it's fine how it is. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ryan. The bots are there as a utility and it does not really matter what they are named. Why recreate something that already exists and is already sutied to perform the task? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is needed. The name doesn't matter. Their just doing a job. I would guess most users reporting here are experienced enough to know that this isn't AIV. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 15:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If anything you may as well rename HBC's bot but I don't think it's necessary. GDonato (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point. I suppose I could rename it, but I think the reality is that the bot designed for AIV is helping here, so I think the name is apt. ^(H) 15:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Navi-bar

Why does the link to UAA keep moving on the admin pages navi-bar? SGGH ^speak! 08:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

People are tinkering with Template:Editabuselinks GDonato (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Idea

Some of the username vios, notable User:The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, the name comes from the woodcut The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife. Whether these things are violations or not, sometimes it might be helpful if the bot leaves a note saying "Note: There is an article called The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife" just in case it explains a username or provides relevant information? Might also help with some of the obscure indian words that have things like "shit" in the middle of them, because it will show us that "choshit" or something is a word not a violation as such. Obviously we would have to program the bot not to do this for violations like "fuck" or something, because obviously those articles exist. SGGH ^speak! 15:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. It's not guarenteed, because in the case described above, the name was User:Thedreamofthefishermanswife wich is too complex for the bot to parse out and check for articles. But it could help for names of notable people. Leebo ^T/C 16:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That particular user was blocked because they created an article about a band by the same name, meaning that their username went from promoting a notable piece of artwork (acceptable, in most cases) to promoting a band (blatant violation). I'm not saying that your idea is not without merit, but this particular example is flawed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This idea would be useful for picking up bands or famous people, specifically all the NFL people because us UK users don't know all the Joe Nameths (sp?) and such out there. Though a like to a google search might suffice, who knows? SGGH ^speak! 20:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Retroactive??

I notice that a number of accounts with email addresses in them were just reported here, and then blocked. Except that they were all from early 2006. I was under the impression that such usernames were grandfathered in under the current version of WP:U?--VectorPotential^Talk 13:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

They are, and i forgot to check accoutn creation - but blocking them does no harm as they all had no edits - a user was going through the users log and reporting everything he saw - pretty useless really. Viridae^Talk 13:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The same applies to me; I didn't check the date of account creation. I will remember to do so with email names in future. James086^{Talk | Email} 13:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the date policy added no e-mail addresses? (what's the latest date a username can be created and still be grandfatherered?) --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The date used to be in the policy, but it was taken out at some point for no clear reason. ^(H) 16:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we really need it. As I understood it, they became forbidden when the software was changed to disallow the use of the @ symbol. So, basically, email address names should never be blocked if they have @ symbols. Mangojuice^talk 17:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, forgot to mention, I re-added the grandfather policy. I originally put January 1, 2007. then I put the specific date (September 26, 2006) but then someone else reverted it. It's been back in the policy for like a month. -N 18:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot now reports title of web site names

When the bot finds a server when using a name as a URL, it will now report the title of the page as well as the connection status if it is available. See this example. ^(H) 16:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well done, fantastic work! GDonato (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, H. Your bots, and coding skills, are amazing. What would we ever do without things like the AIV helperbots? --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally you may want to archive this talk page... *looks up... and up* SGGH ^speak! 19:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

In response to SGGH's little dig above (:-P!) I've archived the page - it was massive! I've also set MiszaBot to archive discussion older than 14 days. Hope that's OK for everyone. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dig, pffft :P SGGH ^speak! 09:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

is that allowed?

I removed a name that did not seem to be in violation, that is what the history shows others doing. Am I allowed to do that? I read the instructions and did not see any rules about how or when or by who they should be removed if not in violation. If I wasn't allowed, well, undo me I guess. Until(1 == 2) 00:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably it's better to wait for another opinion. I would not have blocked it though but rather assumed good faith that they might be a Halo fan.--Sandahl 00:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that advice for just this circumstance, or is that how it works in general? There are instructions on how to report, and how to comment, but none on when to remove, who should remove, and how to remove. While case by case advice is great it would also be nice if the instructions could explain this in general. Until(1 == 2) 01:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is blatantly, unquestionably, irrefutably not a violation, by all means, remove it. If it is at all in a gray area, it's best to let an admin do it. I hate saying that because other than pressing a few buttons, there is nothing that an admin can do that any other user cannot. But invariably, if you remove one that is even remotely questionable, someone is going to complain about a non-admin removing it, so it's best not to. --BigDT 01:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that there is a place it can be taken if it is not accepted here. You say the other than pressing a few buttons admins are like other editors? That seems to contradict you advice about the gray area, I thought that the gray area was supposed to go to RFCN, so isn't that exactly what should be removed? Have you considered codifying the rules about removing names? I am sort of the person who likes to work within some clear rules. I am getting some rather vague advice here. What I am getting from this is that I should use my best judgment when removing names. I read that I should be bold here, but not reckless. Until(1 == 2) 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

He means that while admins are only a few buttons above other editors, they still might not like you removing names from the report page (sounds like rubbish to me, I wouldn't mind who removed it as long as it wasn't a violation) supposedly admins have a more final say in these things but I don't think so, plenty of users more experienced than me who aren't admins. As you say, RFCN is where you take grey areas, but I'm not sure how often it happens.

In the end, if you make a mistake, it isn't like we are going to eat you :P I'm an admin and I've made my own share of mistakes, everyone does. The beauty of wikipedia is it can always be undone. My advice is, if in genuine doubt, leave it or leave a comment saying "im not sure this is a violation" or something. Hope this helps. SGGH ^speak! 20:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good, I will use my best judgment and you can correct me if need be. Until(1 == 2) 21:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you remove one, please indicate in your edit summary "list empty", "list not empty", "5 names on list", or something like that. Admins who monitor this page have it watchlisted - your edit summary is displayed in the watchlist - so by adding list status in your edit summary, you make it easier for someone to recognize that work needs to be done. --BigDT 16:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, will do. Until(1 == 2) 16:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

New Bot

Hey, I had an idea for a new bot to monitor newusers and report them here, I know there is already one active but it hasn't edited lately, and it would be usefull.

I can think of the following criteria that a bot could easily identify, so if anyone would care to comment/suggest then please do.

1. A regex list, as a badlist
2. A list of badwords
3. Names consisting of entirely one letter repeated more than 5 times
4. Names that consist of a website url
5. Names the same as an administrators or crats, however with one or two different characters.
6. Names that contain sequences repeatted more than once

All sequences, wordlists, tld lists, etc will be on wiki, in a user subpage of the bot, and semi protected.

Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It exists, User:H/HBC MCP User:H/HBC MCP/NameWatcher User:H/HBC MCP/IRCFeed. Talk to User talk:Krellis about getting it running again. it is all open source and GFDL. 207.216.12.82 04:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean getting it running again? Has it stopped? SGGH ^speak! 20:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there were several bots running however I wa swanting to program a new one - the existing ones aren't working and I need some more bot-writing experience. And yes, the existing bots have stopped. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There was only one bot running to report bad names and it stopped on the 20th, so just talk to the owner of User:HBC NameWatcherBot or just use the source code that is posted for the bot to run a new copy. Until(1 == 2) 21:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The bot owner has left Wikipedia, so that discussion route is closed. —Kurykh 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

But we have the bot's source code (see above). Like someone said, we should talk to Krellis. He's good at these things, and probably knows how the bot works and everything. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't just continue the bot that stopped on the 20th? Under the control of a new user? SGGH ^speak! 09:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(De-indenting) I certainly could get H's NameWatcherBot up and running from the published source code, but I'm not 100% sure I want to - after all, the problems that led to his eventual departure from Wikipedia seemed, to me at least, to really ramp up after that bot got up and running. I have no evidence that the two are related, but given the fact that I'm not really all that active here recently anyway due to real-life concerns, I'm not sure that taking on this particular bot is a wise idea. —Krellis (Talk) 13:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that the problems that made H leave are completely unrelated to the bot. He revealed his real-life identity and was harassed by a particular user who got into a conflict with him. The conflict was not over a username dispute. Mangojuice^talk 19:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's good to know, I guess. I'll take a look at the code when I get a chance and see where it leads me. I may also e-mail H, as he may be willing to pass on the bot's credentials to me so the username doesn't need to change. —Krellis (Talk) 20:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay - I got in touch with H and got the HBC NameWatcherBot credentials, downloaded the bot, plugins, and such, beat on it a little to make it work on my system, and I think it's up and running successfully now. I can't say for 100% certain that it's working until a matching username comes along and it reports it, but it seems to be reading the IRC feed properly, and I imagine it's only a matter of time until it either works or blows up horribly. —Krellis (Talk) 01:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaand it works! Good job. Grandmasterka 03:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I keep missing it all! I haven't arrived at the UAA page and seen a name waiting to be dealt with for like a week! Do all these things come out at night now? SGGH ^speak! 11:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Extremely lengthy usernames

I don't want to rewrite policy, but I was thinking that since UAA is for clear cut violations, we might want to have an unofficial char limit under which a username is not considered "extremely lengthy" (I mean for non gibberish stuff). I mean, there are 2 usernames on the list at the moment that are roughly 20 characters. "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" (yeah, I know, we always pick that example) is 30 chars. What do you think of stating that all usernames under 30 chars would be better suited for WP:RFCN than UAA? -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The bot currently uses 45 chars as a benchmark. —Kurykh 18:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be lower. Who's going to remember a 35 character username? Eddie 18:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Not me. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on a username. I think than 45 is way too long, but blocking a 22 char long is going a bit far imo if the username means something. (Or we'll have to block CSCWEM ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with anything under 45 going to RFCN, anything above being here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy with a 30-character guideline, but I feel that it should be left to admin discretion. "Can't sleep, clown will eat me"'s name is utterly memorable, whereas a random sequence of the same length is not. It follows, therefore, that as we are the English Wikipedia usernames shouls make sense in the English language.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Anthony. Eddie 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Same here. At least CSCWEM is a manageable acronym. The point of the rule is that we don't want anything that would hinder community discussion. It would be difficult to even address someone if their name were User:I don't want to rewrite policy, but I was thinking that since UAA is for clear cut violations, we might want to have an unofficial char limit under which a username is not considered "extremely lengthy". —Wknight94 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Username blocked

Apparently, (according to WP:UTM) {{usernameblocked}} is deprecated. This means there are no "official" (active) username-blocked templates (as in the uw- ones). The template may have to be redone to meet style guidelines – just a forewarning (I think it's a bit bureaucratic) GDonato (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say it was depreciated? —Kurykh 21:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Old" warnings (Template:TestTemplates) are deprecated by the new uw- ones. GDonato (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is, I hope that someone will produce an alternative. I work a lot in WP:UAA, and as that template creates almost a whole screen of text I do not want to have to type it manually!! --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternative this may meet the guidlines but I don't have the author's permission yet. GDonato (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the old template to {{Uw-usernameblock}} for now, wouldn't that suffice? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Prepare to be reverted... erm.... someone's not going to like that. GDonato (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with it? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I dunno... they have these....guidelines for such templates ;p GDonato (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's now standardised by name and it works perfectly fine - if they don't like it, sod 'em, they're not the ones that use it. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

lol. That would be my approach but you get the 10 WP:BOLD points! GDonato (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholly with Ryan; although I have to say, having now looked all through WP:UTM as mentioned initially by GDonato, I cannot find therein any mention of {{usernameblock}} ! --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Or {{usernameblocked}}, which defaults to the same page. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, someone can repair the 1000s of double redirects we have from that (template exists at {{Uw-UsernameBlocked}}) and someone can sneek it in the WP:UTM. GDonato (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone use AWB? I'll do the sneaking. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, Ryan. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Done Ryan Postlethwaite 22:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest a shortcut at {{uw-ub}} for convenience? Also why are we talking about sneaking things through? Add it to WP:UTM. If there is disagreemnent it can be discussed at WT:UTM and a consensus can be reached as to the best form the template could take. It would be good if someone who is good with templates could give it parameters so the problem with the username (i.e. was it offensive, name of a real person, too close to an existing user ... etc.) could be specified. WjBscribe 22:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It can WJB, you just have to specify yourself e.g. {{subst:uw-usernameblock|it is too similar to an existing user}} Ryan Postlethwaite 22:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah OK - thanks. Didn't know that... WjBscribe 22:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone work out how to change the MediaWiki interface text at the block screen? GDonato (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's fine how it is at present, we don't put uw messages in media wiki. The username block template is in media wiki space so we don't need to faff around with a rename. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, confirmed - what else needs done? GDonato (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, are all the redirects sorted? If so, then fix WP:U and the UAA and RFCN header and that's all I can think of for now. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

UAA done, no mention in the other places, it seems. No, the redirects are not sorted as there are loads and loads, will need to be automated. GDonato (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Block vs Hard Blocked

In the block page drop down box, there are options for usernameblocked and usernamehardblocked. What exactly is the difference and when should we use one vs the other? I sort of know but want to make sure. Rlevse 13:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Username hardblock is for when the IP address or account creation capabilities of that address are also blocked, as well as the username account itself. If you are just blocking that username, its a usernameblock... I believe anyway. SGGH ^speak! 13:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

usernameblock- account creation allowed and autoblock disabled- for possible good-faith names e.g. User:Tonnnnnnnyyyy

usernamehardblock- account creation blocked and autoblock enabled- trolling, attack names e.g. User:GDonatoisgay GDonato (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so if we do a hard block, we leave the two boxes checked on the block page? Rlevse 14:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. GDonato (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

We do have that other box that makes their computer emit custard from the hard disk, but that is only for people who insist there is no CABAL :) SGGH ^speak! 17:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we now have a template to insert on the talk page of a userhardblocked user, given the recent changes? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

{{UsernameHardBlocked}} is good for that. GDonato (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess that was really obvious, wasn't it. Duhh. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

DeadBot Schedule

DeadBot is running on a new temporary host, so the schedule is as follows (incase anyone wants to know why it's not up/when itll come back online):

All times are NZST (GMT+12)

Restarting daily at the following times:

• 0:00 AM
• 6:00 AM
• 12:00 PM
• 6:00 PM

It will be offline for two minutes prior to the restart. If the bot crashes for whatever reason, it should be back on at that time. If a powercut, server crash, etc cause it to stop, the restarting wont help, but it should be good on the next restart after the power is restored, the server is fixed, or whatever the problem is goes away. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Pincock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pincock seems to be a surname, so I'm not really quite sure why it was blocked. This probably isn't the place to bring this up, but I've noticed a large number of false positives winding up blocked, and it seems like this should be brought up somewhere. --VectorPotential^Talk 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Note The profanity word, cock is in that name!--  PNiddy  Go!  0 02:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a name [2]. I'll unblock but 80% of accounts never make a contribution. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 03:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

ZOMG!! [3]. People should remember that the various bots and editors are going to generate a lot (perhaps a majority) of false positives. Some profanities just aren't profane. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Username blocks vs. WP:DENY

Hey. I just noticed that someone registered User:ThisNameMatchesTheLiteralWord"Shit".BeCafeful,IMayBeIndian and that this was blocked. There have been a lot of other usernames along these kind of lines. I have a feeling someone out there is registering usernames for fun to see if they can get blocked. Per Wikipedia:Deny recognition, I think we should stop feeding these trolls by responding to these usernames with reports and blocks, and talk page messages. Mangojuice^talk 02:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

in these cases, blocking account creation helps to cool down things :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 02:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me if they're not editing (the block is pointless then). Is that the case with trolling account creation?--Chaser - T 02:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hardblock them, so that they cannot register more, and hopefully their main account gets blocked as well. It should also block them creating an account. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, a hard block is clearly better than a softblock. But I would still prefer no block, and most importantly no message: why give them the satisfaction? Mangojuice^talk 12:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes we block account creation but they change there IP, its clearly Molag Bal, editors who have been here for a few months will know. Rlest 12:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I just remove it from the list without blocking at all, and it does nothing. WP:BEANS and WP:DENY apply here. If you see one and it doesn't edit just tell them to get a life on the talk page ;p GDonato (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course block them, if you want to deny recognition then don't bother leaving them an explanation on their talk page(as they clearly already know why). If you don't block them they will just do what it takes to get blocked and enjoy it even more. Telling them to get a life on their talk page is exactly what a troll is going for, and it is not helpful to feed them such. Until(1 == 2) 15:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Jesus

I just made a comment on a name containing "Jesus" and then noticed that the bot had also made a report of a name including Jesus as a badword - isn't this accepted as a false positive in some cases, as Jesus is a common name, or do all "Jesus" names have to be blocked anyway? - Zeibura ^(Talk) 05:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The username policy indicates that Usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion in a distasteful, disrespectful, or provocative way, or promote one religion over another. (Note that simple expressions of faith are allowed unless they are disruptive, but are discouraged.) I didn't block the one you commented on, but I did block the jesusisaraptor, which had started vandalizing with the same text. The bot does give false-positives. That's why human beings do the blocks.--Chaser - T 05:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This keyword is needed as it is often used for vandals - at least as commonly, if not more, than the amount that it is used by good-faith users. Bots will always provide false positives - it's the way it works. This particular keyword provides many positives, and a few false positives, so at least for the moment, it will stay. One of the many reasons human discretion is needed. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Also note, you refer to the "bot", whereas there are three seperate bots, User:HBC NameWatcherBot, User:DeadBot, and User:BetacommandBot. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to BetacommandBot, which I've only seen around recently. It was because the report didn't say anything about the string being prone to false positives, which the others always do say, so I wasn't sure whether names with Jesus in them were not accepted at all or only in some cases. Thanks for clarifying, - Zeibura ^(Talk) 00:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That is because of Usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion in a distasteful, disrespectful, or provocative way, or promote one religion over another. (Note that simple expressions of faith are allowed unless they are disruptive, but are discouraged.) it is very rare that a username contains the name Jesus and isn't out to do one of those things. SGGH ^speak! 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Consider that many people of Hispanic background use "Jesus" as a given name and some legit surnames include it as a sub-string. In such cases a username would be legit. DES ^(talk) 20:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

New Username Bots

Since when do DeadBot and Betacommandbot also report usernames and why do we need 3? Also, I don't think Betacommandbot is approved for this. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that each of the three bots do a different task (different words to look for). BetacommandBot was only approved two days ago and was blocked prior to that for running the task without approval. It has since been unblocked and is running. — E ^talk_bots 00:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Both betacommand and ABChelperwhatever seem to be reporting usernames now. Betacommands report summaries don't seem to be as helpful.... SGGH ^speak! 15:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My bot was approved several days ago, and no, betacommandbot was not approved, however several days after he started he was blocked and went for approval, which has been approved. If you want to watch out for new bots, watchlist the page at WP:BRFA. Also, each of the 3 pick up on different things, various criteria, etc. They each have their own pros and cons. Also, mine is not active (I run deadbot) due to the fact I am waiting for a toolserver account. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it is active now, I got a temporary host. The toolserver would still be better, but oh well. Eventually (next round of approvals is next week) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What service do the other bot(s) provide that the original bot could not do? Why not move the words to the the existing bots blacklist instead of running a whole new bot that seems to just do a limited subset of the existing bots actions? Until(1 == 2) 15:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

My bot handles detection of similairly-named sockpuppets etc, as well as longer names, and some other detection methods the others dont support. Also, multiple bots is very helpful when one or two of the existing bots are down (which can and does happen). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I understand the idea of redundancy. But the old bot can handle regexes and long names. The other detection methods you mention intrigue me. Regardless, I cannot see the harm in extra bots, other than the increase in false positives and the less verbose explanations of the violations it reports. Until(1 == 2) 15:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Watch list reporting

Has anyone else noticed that when WP:UAA is on a watchlist, only user-reports are listed and bot-reports are not? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 10:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The bot page is transcribed to this page. Viridae^Talk 11:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to also watchlist Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Anthony, you may have ignore bot edits checked on your watchlist? --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 00:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had the same issue. It's annoying as we are told that this page is empty as the bots are editing a different page. Secretlondon 04:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

backlog

The backlog tag appears on the bot page but not the main UAA page. SGGH ^speak! 21:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Must be that the bot page was backlogged but UAA was not. Until(1 == 2) 15:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's put in noinclude tags, so that the bot page is marked as backlogged, but the main page isnt. It's a feature. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is that? SGGH ^speak! 16:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So admin go directly into the bot page instead of the main page. --WinHunter ^(talk) 16:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the source, the bot lacks the functionality to add the entries on both pages to determine a common backlog. That is why there are 2 different backlogs. Until(1 == 2) 16:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is yet another reason why having a separate bot page is annoying. Secretlondon 04:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot edit summaries

I propose we do away with the bot edit summaries on these pages. Edit summaries like the two shown here are not necessary and frankly a little tiresome. At the risk of violating WP:BEANS, if vandals aren't yet creating horrible usernames just so they get into the bots' edit summaries, they soon will be. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, you cant distinguish between those offensive names, and the ones that aren.t In general, the summaries are more useful than annoying. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The "3 users rm" part is always useful SGGH ^speak! 15:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Meh, it is a fleeting fame. It is not like they just won't find another way to get attention. Nobody sees those edit summaries unless they are intentionally looking in the "bad name" area anyways. Until(1 == 2) 16:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the unintentional humour generated when the bot highlights someone's innocuous name containing a naughty word? I, for one, would miss that ;) --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 01:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I for one find the summeries useful -- it helps keep track of what kinds of names are being reported and blocked (or not blocked). DES ^(talk) 16:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Betacommand does have reports which incorrectly spell actually, and the words are reported as numbers too, which is weird. SGGH ^speak! 22:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I find the BCbot lacking in interactivity, its summaries/explanations are terse at best showing only the "bad word" it detected and not what it thinks of it, and when it detects words that are not "bad", there is no blacklist that can be edited by the community. I prefer what HBC bot does, as it explains what might be wrong with a word, warns about false positives when likely, and has a user editable blacklist/whitelist.

For example, when the bot reports a name with "Jesus" in it, it just says that "jesus" is a "bad word", it does not say anything like "Mention of religious figures is not automatically a violation of WP:U. Please consult policy for details" as the other bot might. I suppose that admins already know that, but it is nice to be reminded, considering the functionality already exists. Until(1 == 2) 23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Im planning on adding a reason field to BCBots reports, (I have to re-write how it stores that data so its taking some time to get things working). And if you want to edit BCbots report list you can do that via IRC Im on irc.freenode.net and I can bring you into my CinC where the IRC interface with the bot is. Just PM me or let me know. ^∆ 03:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to getting rid of the bot edit summaries, As Des said it helps to determine who has been blocked etc when people are checking and makes the running of that page smoothly, I dont really say a problem with this not being good per WP:BEANS but if the bot got rid of edit summaries here then it would only be fair for it to be done at WP:AIV, this seems way to controversial. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 09:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with the new bots is that they do not have a whitelist, like the HBC bot has. IMO, the new bots have had more false positives than the HBC bot. What about modifying the other username bots, so that they use the same blacklist and whitelist as the HBC bot as well? This would make sense, since these lists are edited on-wiki and a string is equally offensive regardless of which bot reports it. Gandoman 21:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

They can't - different languages have different regex parsing engines, and the flags etc would be annoying. Also, multiple bots doing the exact same thing is a bit pointless in this case - its good to have some differences, some pick up things others don't. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did the bot just report a dot.com violation as dotfoo? This is an example of the weird comments it leaves.... I don't understand SGGH ^speak! 21:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A "dot.org" or a "dot.net" (etc.) violation would fall under the same category, hence the "dotfoo." —Kurykh 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

But that requires the admin to understand hacker slang and identify foo Secretlondon 01:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The label applied can be edited on the bots blacklist page. Until(1 == 2) 01:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

leet speak

Just a thought, should we prehaps ask reporting users to translate the leet speak violations in their report summaries for the aid of the users who can't read them? For instance, I can't read whatever the current leet violation is on the page, so it would certainly help me :D

I'm probably the only one who can't read leet *rolls eyes* SGGH ^speak! 00:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Do not feel bad, I am still trying to figure out what the current entry refers to. Dust Filter 00:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hitcherfink... or something. SGGH ^speak! 00:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It was the redneck I banned it for. Secretlondon 00:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Local slang is particularly useless in this regard. Admins are from all over the world - we don't necessarily speak your local variant of teenager (and there is no guarantee suspect account does either) Secretlondon 00:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That also comes under the "elaborate on your reports" which i stamped highlighted and underlines over at the old WP:AIV and thought I did the same on the orange board here too. Don't get me started on how daft it can get :D SGGH ^speak! 00:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of a User page

The "User:Bluedrkangl" page has been replaced with a defaced and locked page on Adolf Hitler. It should be removed. 134.241.58.252 18:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

BetaCommandBot

Could this bot not pick up things like !!! common vandalism phrase, as a)we are not interested in vandalism here, and b)it's not against the username policy. That bot also thinks that all mentions of religion are against the policy, which they are not.. Secretlondon 19:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You should probably leave this at User:Betacommand's talk page. I've been seeing a lot of problems with the names this bot reports though, and I honestly have heard nothing but complaints. I'm not sure where you go to revoke bots, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wound up there soon --L-- 20:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a complaint, take it to the Bots Approval Group, after, of course, discussing the matter with Betacommand. --Boricuaeddie 21:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking about it, that bot needs a user editable blacklist because some of what it is reporting is not even close to violations. Until(1 == 2) 13:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, username policy has slacked recently. There was a point where anything with a religious reference was either blocked or subject to a lengthy WP:RFCN. I like the editable blak list idea so, as policy evolves anybody can update the bots flags. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have left BC a note. The real problem for me is things like "!!!" and "hahaha" being called bad words. I am not sure what BCBot does that the existing bots cannot do with more control. Until(1 == 2) 13:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ive removed !!! & hahaha, and I do have a interactive list, its on IRC, users who wish to see the bot please PM me (my username is Betacommand there too). β^_command 14:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And what about those who don't use IRC? Until(1 == 2) 14:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Leave a note on my talkpage. β^_command 14:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've reorganized this page, per discussion on WT:U, to reflect that it now serves two purposes:

• A noticeboard for usernames that may violate the username policy, particularly those discovered by bots.
• A list of usernames that need to be blocked by admins.

When the two purposes were conflated, admins were indefinitely blocking good-faith contributors for having bad usernames, against the intent of the username policy.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Umm, how is "Questionable usernames" different than RFCN? Was the problem really the admins not knowing if it was questionable or not because those reporting did not mark it as such? How does this new section change anything? For the blatant section we review and decide to block, remove, or leave, same for the questionable section. If it is that questionable it should go to RFCN. The bot has always had its own section. This seems like a needless layer to me. Until(1 == 2) 13:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• With all due respect Rspeer, the reorganisation was unnecessary, given that the purpose of UAA is for blockable usernames, and that of RFCN is for the questionable ones. We need to enforce this message more strongly, rather than introduce more layering. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I am going to reverse your bold addition until there is consensus here to make such a change. Please feel free to discuss. Until(1 == 2) 13:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Riana, if people are getting blocked when they should not, then talk to the admin who did it, or try to change policy. But I don't think adding more layers here will change things, I don't even see what these changes change. Until(1 == 2) 14:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • In that case, the page needs to be changed to make it very clear that only usernames that are pretty unquestionably violations of the letter of the policy should be on here, and to make abundantly clear to admins that the policy isn't something to be followed mechanistically, as some admins seem to at the moment. Possibly there being a pointer to RFCN on the page would make sense as well, so people know what to do with names they're unsure of. SamBC(talk) 14:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • That was what the original page said. Overzealous admins and username reporters need to be admonished - the changing of the structure was not needed. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• The purpose of this page is to be a report noticeboard. It is not the purpose of this page to explain to admins how "mechanically" they should follow policy. Policy can be handled at the policy talk page, admin behavior at the admins talk page. It really does say all that at the top of the page already, "A list of usernames that need to be blocked by an administrator because they are blatantly inappropriate", "If you are going to comment here, please read the username policy first. If further discussion is required, the username will be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names". Until(1 == 2) 14:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I was updating the page to reflect how people use it. Since no bot report can possibly be "clearly blatant", doesn't that mean that we should move bot reports to RFCN? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Bot reports are made due to blacklisted strings. Sensible admins remove them if they are false positives. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • That's a false dichotomy -- even most "true positives" are not blatantly inappropriate, they're just run-of-the-mill WP:U violations that need to be warned, not blocked. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
        • • My point is that the bot reports - it doesn't block. Admins should use their brains and not block just because the bot has reported it. You need to change the mindset of trigger-happy administrators, not introduce more instructions into what is already apparently a confusing process for some. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
            • And my point is that the bot is reporting to the wrong place. Bots posting here confuses the process more, because it puts questionable usernames on a page meant for names that need to be blocked. I can understand why several admins then get confused and block those names instead of warning them. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Not to mention causing ordinary users to believe that those are appropriate names to report here. I would suggest adding to the wording that "names that need more discussion will be moved" a suggestion that users consider whether they ought to post there in the first place. SamBC(talk) 17:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying that a bot report is based off of unambiguous criteria and will need human checking before an action is taken. Until(1 == 2) 20:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait till there is an edit

I noticed that some of the bots reports are being removed because the user has not edited. The bot does have a flag WAIT_TILL_EDIT that can be placed next to keywords to make it wait until an edit before reporting. Until(1 == 2) 13:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

An edit that may not ever come. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

At which point it doesn't particularly matter if they're blocked, right? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, if they never edit, then it doesn't matter at all. Leebo ^T/C 16:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

True. :) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's often better if a good faith user with an innappropriate username is blocked before they edit, so they can quickly create a new username before they even have any contributions. In my opinion it's best to block as soon as possible if a username is against policy - it sounds strange, but it will encourage new users to create an account with a more appropriate username. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that better? That sounds like the dystopian premise behind Minority Report to me. If they're not vandals, you've probably driven them away because they'd have to jump through bureaucratic hoops they don't understand to continue editing; and if they are vandals and they start vandalizing under a "more appropriate username", what have you gained besides harder-to-spot vandalism? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's better because if the minute they start to edit they get blocked, they won't come back. I support discussing with users if the username may be inappropriate then taking it to RFCN for a second opinion, but if the username is against our policy, we don't need to wait till they've edited. If a good faith user creates a clearly inappropriate username, they get blocked and can create a new account straight away, before they've even got stuck into editing on their old account. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But the policy doesn't say that every name that breaches the letter of it is verboten; it gives guidance as to what may be inappropriate, and advises common sense. It seems to be being taken very mechanistically by some admins, and appropriate loosely by others; it makes sense to try, one way or another (or several at once) to rectify this. One way is to make changes to appropriate pages that the admins will see; another is to notice the over-zealous admins and post to their talk page. The first is more polite and ought to be tried first, IMO. There are, of course, various other such ideas and methods, and all should be considered. SamBC(talk) 17:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't support waiting until a user with a username violation has edited in all instances. In some situations, the immediate block of the name is most definitely needed. In the last 10 minutes, the following user names were created: User:My girlfriend gives great cock massages, User:Goddamn phucking Clintons!, and User:For a good blowjob call Big Lip Belinda 555-5555. There should be no question that waiting is not a good idea, for just a whole number of reasons, lol. However, I would agree there are some names, such as the reports for "gibborish names" should be watched, there are many viable editors with names that would trigger the bot reporting it for not having vowels, or having consecutive repetitive letters. ^Ariel♥Gold 20:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is why the new standard we seem to be using - blocking violations definitely created in bad faith immediately but welcoming and maybe asking for username changes when it comes to those who may well be good faith users - is much better. Of course we don't need to wait a second when it comes to those three, but listing Hdhfdgdggd, to use one recent near victim, here, before even leaving them a message or letting them make an edit, is biting the newcomers. Common sense should not be applied selectively. Picaroon (t) 20:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Odd names are not automatically bad faith creations. As illustrated, a blanket rule cannot be applied to automatic blocks before editing, but is certainly warranted in some situations. I'd agree in the other, non-obvious situations, a quick note on the user's page requesting they create a new name would be much more helpful than a block without explanation why. However, the name still may need to be blocked, depending on the reasons. As always, the best of both worlds can be used for a happier outcome. :) ^Ariel♥Gold 20:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see this "new standard" be reflected in policy before we adopt it at this noticeboard. Until(1 == 2) 20:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Username policy: "Unless a username is a blatant infringement of username policy, do not report it unless the user has begun editing." "In borderline cases, you will be asked to choose a new username; in egregious cases, your account will simply be indefinitely blocked." "The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page, explaining the problem and suggesting that they change their username." Looks like the standard I mistakenly called new is what we should've been doing all along. Picaroon (t) 20:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost all bot reports are invalid

I'm currently removing most bot reports. Almost all of them are invalid WP:UAA reports, according to WP:U (and not even some change to it by me and my newbie-hugging allies, but the way it's been for quite a while). In particular, basically every bot report is invalid for these reasons:

• The username was not created in bad faith.
• The user has never edited.
• No one has warned the user about their username.

If you read WP:U, you will notice that if any two of the conditions above holds, you are not supposed to block. Most bot reports fail all three. They would be reasonable reports on WP:RFCN, but they're way out of place here, and their presence encourages users and admins to misuse WP:U as badly as the bots do. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is not with bot reports in general, it's BetacommandBot's and DeadBot's reports that render the most false positives. HBCNameWatcher did a great job of just reporting blatantly bad faith usernames with a high percentage of accuracy. If anything we should be requiring the other bots to meet this level of accuracy. Leebo ^T/C 20:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Leebo. I think HBC bot has amazing capabilities and even wanrs about commo nfalse positives. My all time favorite feature is the domain checker that gives the http return code for possible spam sites. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is some times its better to catch possible usernames that could use intervention. If you have false positives in regard to certin phrases please bring them to my attention. Some of the bot reports need to be handled by humans because they do have false positives, or need human judgment. β^_command 20:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The HBC bot gives valid reports most of the time. BCB, I agree, can often misfire. GDonato (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Being reported by a bot does not mean a name is in violation, it means it is being placed in a spot where humans can look at it. That being said, some bots do better than others. There needs to be active consensus based editing of the blacklists and whitelists to bring it in line with changing policies. Until(1 == 2) 20:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I welcome users to contact me on Freenode, I have my controls set on IRC for several reason one including improper regexes crash the bot. Like Ive said my talkpage is open too. Human judgment is needed otherwise we would have admin bot doing this. β^_command 20:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Like you did not so long ago? Da Masta 20:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Im using the exact same code that i was using then it reports usernames to me. Instead of making personal attacks lets discuss the issues at hand. and I would warn you not to make personal attacks, especially without proof. β^_command 20:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Masta, I don't think that is entirely relevant. Until(1 == 2) 20:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I recognize that these bots serve a purpose, in that they bring questionable usernames to the attention of humans. But why can't humans look at the bot reports on WP:RFCN, where the vast majority of them belong? What is gained by bending the username policy to put them here? Remember that when I tried to make a section for "questionable names" on here, including bot reports, people said the section was unnecessary because the names belong on RFCN, so why aren't they going there? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Because very few bot reported names need any discussion at all. The suggestion that only blatant names go here is a suggestion for humans, a bot cannot tell what is blatant and what is not. When the bot got approval to post here there was both a consensus with the bot approval board and on this noticeboard's talk page that this is an appropriate place to make such reports. They go in their own section that warns of the nature of the reports. They don't belong at RFCN because that is a place where people request comments about names, not a place to report a name that no human has looked at. UAA is for simple decisions made with admin discretion, RFCN is decisions that need more input. Until(1 == 2) 19:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried to edit the header to make it a little clearer to new people who turn up at the page. What do people think? SamBC(talk) 19:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Domain names

There have been many instances recently of domain names being reported just for being domain names. I think this is a clear case of where WAIT_TILL_EDIT is needed. People are assuming (led on by HBCNameWatcherBot, no less) that having a user name that looks like a domain name is a "blatant violation", when I think it's far from it.

Domain names go here because they might be used to spam. You can't "pre-block" people because you think they might be about to spam! You need to see what they've edited to find out if they're editing in good faith or not.

Also, HBC has an extremely misleading feature on it, where it will return the HTTP response in an attempt to show whether the name is the name of an actual website. But with sufficiently short domain names, this doesn't tell you anything. Every short domain name is squatted by one company or another. "Squatter" sites are not real web sites. There would be no reason to promote them with spam.

The most baffling reaction here was when Until observed that Fca.ph was a squatted domain, not a real website. False alarm, right? It should be taken off the list so it's not sitting there as yet another example of how not to make a UAA report. But then Nick said we had to "wait and see" if User:Fca.ph would spam us. What possible reason is there to assume that he would, any more than any other newbie?

A couple of proposed fixes:

• Fix in UAA culture: don't report, block, or assume bad faith from newbies for having names that look like domain names.
• Fix in HBC NameWatcherBot: Add WAIT_TILL_EDIT to the domain rules, and add a warning to the "200 OK" message that some domains may be squatted.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If a username looks like a domain name, and when I search I find it is a domain name, it get's blocked, because although it may not be the intention of the user to spam us, it does indeed spam the page histories every time it edits. Obviously, if a username looks like a low level domain but there isn't actually a domain that matches it, I wouldn't block it. This is in the username policy for an important reason. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

UAA regulars have a very interesting interpretation of the username policy. It is the sole thing that justifies UAA's existence, but when it says something that's contrary to the common practice on UAA, you either ignore it or pretend it says something else.

The policy says "E-mail addresses or web page addresses are generally considered likely to be promotional," and tells you to block promotional usernames, presumably under the usual process that requires you to wait until they edit, not the expedited "blatantly inappropriate" process.

If the username matches the name of a Web site but is not promoting anything, you have no reason to block. And that is exactly the case if the name happens to match the name of a squatter site. Squatter sites serve only two purposes: to fill up a domain so someone else can't buy it, and to get people to follow links to real sites. There is nothing on them to be promoted. A squatter site is a clear indication of a false positive.

Even non-squatted sites may not be spammers. I know many people who use the name of their website as their online moniker. This is becoming increasingly more common with systems such as OpenID, where you have to use a domain name as a username. So a user with a domain name as a username may not be promoting anything or doing anything wrong, they may just be using their usual online name. Once again, it's a case where you might have to (shudder) talk to a newbie. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's promotional the minute they start editing as it's promoting a website in the article histories - any user can be blocked for attempting to promote a company, that's nothing to do with there username, we have the username part of the policy to stop spamming on logs and contrib lists. It's the same reason that we block usernames that match the name of companies - if a username is clearly promotional by implying a web address or company name - it get's blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what rspeer is saying. The username policy states that domain name usernames may be promotional, and this requires intent to promote in what they contribute. If all domain name usernames were thought to be promotional regardless of intent, it would say to block all domain names. Leebo ^T/C 17:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You seem to be ignoring the policy quote rspeer has given; that section of policy says that company names are inappropriate, but website names/domain names are considered likely to be inappropriate. The policy seems quite clear on the matter. Your arguments are not without merit of course, but if you (or anyone else) thinks that's what should be done, propose a change to the policy and let it be discussed and consensus reached. That really should be done, in fact, as policy should be descriptive rather than prescriptive. SamBC(talk) 17:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Leebo, that was indeed my point. Ryan, if you want to back up your blocks with WP:U, you'll have to apply what WP:U actually says. And nothing in it lets you get from "matches the name of a squatter site" to "clearly promotional", because as I said, nobody would want to promote a squatter site. Also, you haven't addressed the issue people using domain names as user names in good faith because it's their actual online handle. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you guys go to WP:U and you will see in the talk archives plenty of discussion as to why this is in policy and the way it is enforced. As I said, if I see a user with a domain for a username and it matches a website that I consider can be promoted, then I block it - that's what it's in policy for! I wouldn't go and block squatter sites, they simply aren't promotional. I find it strange that a few admins are going out attempting to enforce there views when these issues have gained consensus multiple times before on vaious pages and have been working fine and will continue to work fine. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume that those "enforcing their views" have the best interest of new contributors in mind. Rspeer in particular is not arguing that promotional names should be allowed, but that if the user is not actively promoting the site they should be talked to rather than blocked. Leebo ^T/C 17:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But the fact is, every time they edit they promote the website of their domain username, that's why we block and then discuss. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Response in a new section. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree here, they only people that seem to disagree with this are you, nick and SamBC - this page is to enforce the username policy - if a username encroaches on that policy, it gets blocked, if it might encraoch on it - discussion happens with that user. I'm all for discussing username violations with users if there is a possibility that the username is against WP:U, but there's no need for discussion if it's clearly against it. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The bot simply reports that it is a domain name that has a webserver, and quotes the relevant policy. I don't see the advantage of waiting until a URL name edits before blocking it. It is up to the admins discretion to decides if a block is warranted. Though I agree that the note can be altered to include a comment about real names that resembled urls. Parked domains are just as promotional though, they all have spam based search engines. Once again I point out that the policy recommends that admins block based on the clarity of the violation, not the egregiousness of it. Until(1 == 2) 18:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Admins have nothing to use discretion on until the account edits. You can't tell if it's promotional or not until they try to promote something. Also, you're missing the point about parked domains. Yes, parked domains are themselves promotional and spammy. They want to get you off the parked domain and onto something that makes actual money for someone. They have no content of their own. For that reason, no one would promote a parked domain! A spammer would promote the actual money-making things and skip the parked domain. So if someone's username happens to match a parked domain, you have to realize that the far more likely situation is that it's a coincidence. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A promotional username block is to stop the name showing up in logs and contribs - nothing to do with what they edit! As I keep saying, thats behavioural conduct, here we are talking about simply a promotional username, and anything that matches a website domain or company is promotional. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's likely to be promotional, not definitely promotional. Leebo ^T/C 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if it matches a domain, it is promotional. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We've already asserted that there can be exceptions. The username policy says likely to be promotional, because there are exceptions where it may match a domain (due to coincidence or some other circumstances) and is not promotional, even if this is unlikely or unusual. Leebo ^T/C 18:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly where admin discretion comes in. If a guys names is "Come.in" and there just happens to be a website there, it is likely a coincidence. If it is "LuckyFella.jp", and there is a website, it is less likely to be a coincidence. I agree that parked domains are less likely to be promotional, but that is only one factor to consider. If a person had 50 domains parked with spam search engines on them, it would be in their best interest to plaster the names all over Wikipedia. Didn't HBC bot use to report the title of the web page? That would help detect domain parked sites right on the page for admins to take into consideration. Until(1 == 2) 19:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Where do non-blatant violations go?

RFCN is for discussions, this page is for reports. Bots don't start discussions, they make reports. It takes a human to decide if something goes to RFCN. Most reports don't need any discussion, it makes no sense. Until(1 == 2) 23:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Because this page is for names where a passing administrator can typically look in for a minute and say "yep, that needs to be blocked" or "no, no need for a block." Very often, the bot-reported names are either blatantly abusive names needing blocks, or innocent coincidences that are quickly removed from the list. WP:RFCN, by contrast, is for names warranting community discussion, which would be true of only a very small percentage of the bot reports. For the bot reports to go to RFCN rather than here would thus waste community time on relatively obvious cases, which is part of what I believe this page was set up to reduce. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem, as I keep saying, is the third kind of name. Names that simply violate the username policy, and therefore need to be warned, but don't meet the criteria for a block -- which I think is the most common case, and which the regulars here like to pretend doesn't exist.

I tried setting up a section on this page for such names, and Until(1 == 2) removed it, saying that that was what WP:RFCN is for. But now we have an argument against actually putting such names on WP:RFCN. So why can't I make a section of this page for inappropriate usernames that may not need blocking? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you need to discuss something with a person you don't need a noticeboard, you just discuss it. Until(1 == 2) 00:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

For gods sake please don't flood RFCN with bot reports. That page is very useful for getting opinions from other people when people aren't sure. Viridae^Talk 00:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sending reports to RFCN was not my first choice; it was something I proposed after Until(1 == 2) removed the section I made for such reports here, which had directions for remedies other than blocking. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on, not this fight again. We had this exact same fight several months ago at WP:RFCN. As a reasult., WP:UAA was spawned to deal with egregious offenses or , as WP:U states, "Offensive usernames that may make harmonious editing difficult or impossible, including but not limited to:"., For example, it is my belief that most people would find the name shitonme88 offensive enough to block on site. That is what UAA is for. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To me, usernames are a) possibly offensive or inappropriate and need blocking or b) they get removed from the list. I still think RFCN is close to useless, and I have opted for its deletion both times it was MfDed. Why add yet another layer of bureaucracy? Grandmasterka 00:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

UAA was desinged for obvious violations, such as in my opinion shitonme88 or something like that. RFCN was for controversial ones, ones that might lead to precedent or force policy change. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If a username was truly precedent-setter or one that would force policy change, I would prefer that it be brought up on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. But that's beside the point right now... I think the bots serve a very good purpose, even though I agree that some of BetacommandBot's triggers haven't made sense to me. Grandmasterka 00:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As we're currently discussing on my talk page, there's nothing in "shitonme88" so blatant that it needs to be trumped up into an insta-block. It's a run-of-the-mill username violation, and deserves a warning. This is what I want to create a section on UAA for!

I have made a proposal for how to avoid the harmful, newbie-biting assumption that every violation of WP:U -- a policy that newbies have never seen -- should lead to an instant block. The proposal is to create a section on this page for ordinary violations that probably require a warning and not a block. Even though I've tried this once and been reverted, I still think it would work. The only counter-proposal I've received is that I should personally yell at everyone who inappropriately blocks a newbie, and I find that rather tiring and counter-productive. I would rather work on fixing the problem instead of yelling about it until things change. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think "shitonme88" does not need a username block, then perhaps you should not be judging username blocks, because such names are against policy and need blocking. The problem may not be the system, but how you think the system should be. If you want it changed do it on WT:U, get consensus, and change policy. Until(1 == 2) 00:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

...Not only that, but the {{usernameblock}} template that such users see (automatically!) when they are username blocked is a nice, non-biting way to let them know that that username won't work. Grandmasterka 00:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No - you still need to add the template to their talk page - it isn't added automatically. Secretlondon 15:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he meant that it gets added to the talk page automatically. I believe he means that the user will see it when they try to edit if the blocking admin put {{usernameBlocked}} as the blocking reason from the dropdown box. Leebo ^T/C 15:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

RFCN is a place where admins can get comments about a name to help them make a decision. That is all it is. This is a place to report names that may need to be blocked, that is all it is. There does not need to be a place where you post names that only need discussion or warning, because you can just go and discuss/warn the user. Until(1 == 2) 00:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Then what should the bots do? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Until, that's not what the notes on the page say; the notes on the page say that it's only for blatant ones that pretty definitely need blocking. The presence of formulaic detections here with the explanation that "religious terms shouldn't be in usernames", for example, will encourage users to report it and encourage new admins to block them. SamBC(talk) 16:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

They post here, the place to report names that may need to be blocked. I have added a note to the bot section that I hope relieves some of your fears. Until(1 == 2) 00:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the idea of putting a note in the bot section may deal with a lot of the problem, but your note gets the idea wrong. The case that's being mishandled is names that are violations, and therefore need to be warned, but are not so blatant that someone needs to get blocked. It's true that such names shouldn't appear anywhere else on the page besides the bot section. Would you mind if I changed the note to clarify this situation? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is up to the discretion of the admin if a block is needed. If it is a violation, and it causes harm then a block is needed. That block only applies to the username that is a violation, the user is instructed on how to choose a name that is not a violation. There is no biting, we are just not letting the use a name in violation of policy. WP:U makes a disctinction between clear and questionable names, not referring to the intensity of the violation, but the clarity of if it is a violation or not. I am not sure what you are suggesting adding, but if the current policy does not reflect it, start at WT:U. Until(1 == 2) 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's biting. The user is given a complicated set of instructions that involves learning how to use templates, and if they don't manage to do that they can't keep editing. And I strongly disagree with you that every violation needs to be blocked, because no other policy on Wikipedia is that harsh. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Call me stupid if you like, and I may be out of place speaking up since I'm not an admin, but I'm a little confused as to why this discussion is still taking place. As I understand it, it is standard to review contribution history for all bot-reported issues, regardless of offensiveness of the name, correct? If there are particular bots that seem to be reporting incorrectly, shouldn't the discussion be taken up with the person who runs that particular bot, and not here? It seems like this discussion is almost admonishing those users who are reporting obvious offensive names, when this topic originally (I think) was simply questioning the reporting strings of some of the bots. My experience is that HBC AIV helperbot3 is often right most of the time, and in fact its reports are very often duplicated by user reports. However, WP:RFCN specifically states: For blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, post to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.

So I guess my question is, what is the real issue? The rules are simple: Obvious inappropriate violations go to UAA; bot reports that question certain known strings are reported to UAA for review (and placement on RFCN if needed); RFCN is there for instances of violations that aren't heinous (such as the one I just submitted, User:Jaime Alberto dos Santos Cardoso, 1953 born in Portugal country). Finally, all bot reported names should be reviewed prior to any action. Is that a correct summary? ^Ariel♥Gold 00:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that reflects how we do things. And it seems to be working. If a block seems bad to someone they need to take the advice in WP:BLOCK and talk to the admin, and take it to WP:AN if needed. Until(1 == 2) 01:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the outcry against UAA on the village pump and tell me again that it's working. As I've said above, there have to be better ways to fix things than yelling at each person who abuses the username policy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy is not being abused, the tactic you are suggesting is not what the policy recommends. If the problem is being abused then yes, it is a problem you need to take up with that admin, not yelling at them but talking to them. Or if you get consensus for your changes at WT:U then those changes can be made. But a few people complaining does not a problem make. This is not the place for policy changes. Until(1 == 2) 01:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I proposed it originally on WT:U. I got two people agreeing with me, one of whom I had been disagreeing with for a long time (though he pointed out that it might be redundant with WP:RFCN, something we've realized by now isn't true), and no disagreements. So I came here and implemented it. How many more hoops would you like me to jump through? Also, I agree with Chrislk02 below, who I'm edit conflicting with; there has to be a difference between egregious offenses and normal offenses. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is; egregious offenses get {{Usernamehardblocked}} and get account creation blocked, and normal offenses get {{usernameblocked}} and are told to get a new account. It's that simple. Grandmasterka 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, nowhere else on Wikipedia are such inflated punishments given out on a first offense. The name-change process is extremely daunting for a newbie, and requires someone to respond and change the name; meanwhile, the newbie who just idly came across the idea of editing Wikipedia has moved on, and will tell their friends what a hostile place WP is. If you think this isn't true, show me some examples of newbies who have successfully changed their names and gone on editing after being blocked. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind a few months ago when I refused to block a username with the word pimp in and we almost lost a very valuable contributor. The username policy is a balance between existing users and new users. THere is a reason it specifies the difference between egregious offenses and just normal offenses. Also, I do not know how many people at the village pump have worked UAA and RFCN faily for the past several months. It has worked fairly well so far. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be back later. Try not to block too many n00bs in the meantime, okay? There are other ways to deal with problems besides blocking. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, 2 real important things. First, what you have at WT:U is a discussion that has not reached a consensus to change policy, nor do I think it is likely too. Secondly, the "n00bs" are not being blocked, they are having the editing privileges from a policy violating name removed, and being invited to create a new name and edit. We are not banning these folks for life, just making them choose a name that does not ask us to shit on them, getting people to follow policy is not biting. This isn't about making you go through hoops, it is that your opinion is not supported by consensus at this point. Until(1 == 2) 01:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking to change policy. I'm asking to take the current policy, which involves warning users in non-blatant cases, and making it clearer how to apply it on UAA. Last I checked, nobody on WT:U was opposed to me clarifying UAA, two people supported the idea, and then the discussion went on to a different topic. If you want me to wait until the entire talk page of WT:U is in consensus about everything, you're asking me to wait a very long time indeed, so let's try to focus on this one simple issue. Why would you be opposed to making it clear that admins have the option not to block ordinary violations of the username policy? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know if anyone's spelled this out, but here's why "shitonme" or suchlike are inappropriate and should be blocked on site: While we don't censor or forbid obscene language generally, it's a) advised against and b) forbidden to deliberately bait people and cause offence (implicitly by the very nature of WP:CIVIL). The phrase "shit on me" is an imperative, ordering/suggesting/inviting an action which many people will find offensive. Thus, such things are not allowed as user names. On a similar note, thing like "my girlfriend gives great head" is clearly something that can be expected to cause offence, and is thus against WP:CIVIL, and thus should be blocked. (I'm signing each paragraph so people can reply point-by-point) SamBC(talk) 02:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see that there's a consensus to block names like "shitonme" instead of warn them, and I can even see the reasoning there -- they're unlikely to plan to stay here long with a name like that, even if they're not vandals. But I don't want this to slip back into blocking "badassbassist" and "Ggggggggggggggg12". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

All that said, I think that, when people are blocked for their username, they should be told very specifically what's wrong with it, told how to appeal the decision, and given clear choices between a change of username (especially if they have made non-trivial worthwhile edits) or creating a new account. The admin ought to invite some sort of conversation to try and find a suitable name, if the user wants it. All of these things do happen now to very variable degrees, some of them very rarely. SamBC(talk) 02:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A real problem with the bots is that they end up on a page that users (and admins, to some extent) see with a banner saying "usernames put here are ones that ought to be blocked" and then there's a very considerable number of false positives (especially from betacommandbot). The reasons the bots give aren't inherently blatant (such as a names like 'Cockroft' having bad words in) and this will influence people. Okay, the 'Cockroft' theoretical example is a bit exagerregated, but you should get the idea. There are even whole categories of matches from the bots that could never, ever be blocked without considerable admin investigation (such as connections to websites), and it's unfair to assume that any name matching a website or a company must be a representative of said entity seeking promotion; we should WP:AGF and talk to them about it, or treat it simply as a component of a decision regarding wider behaviour, but I would say that the username should be part of the consideration of edit behaviour, not vice-versa. That might just be me though. SamBC(talk) 02:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree quite a bit with that last statement. In the end, there's a good way to identify vandals and spammers, which is that they vandalize or spam. Blocking them for things they actually do is a much saner approach than blocking people because it looks like they're going to vandalize or spam. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy explicitly recommends blocking names that give the impression of the intent to cause trouble. Until(1 == 2) 00:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

When considered, it really is easy to tell - if you have got User:IWANTTOVANDALISEWIKIPEDIA, it becomes a little bit hard to assume good faith, and the user would be blocked by point 3 of the username policy. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Shut off username bots, except HBC Namewatcher

In regard to the above discussions, I propose that we concentrate on using HBC Namewatcher Bot as the username-reporting bot, and shut off the others. As many have noticed, the HBC bot has few false positives, while the two others are responsible for most of them. I can think of several advantages to this:

• The HBC bot is the only one with a whitelist facility, which permits certain phrases to be "whitelisted" so that those phrases are disregarded when checking for bad words. I believe this is a large contribution to the bot's low false-positive rate. The other bots do not have such a facility.
• The HBC bot gives more detailed reports, and has a facility for associating comments with particular bad words, informing admins of peculiarities to look out for, e.g. the possibility of Indian names containing "shit". The other bots just report "Reported because of bad phrase xxxxx".
• The blacklist and whitelist for the HBC bot are easily editable on-wiki by any admin, with several options for marking bad words as low confidence, withholding reports until a user edits and so on. In contrast, DeadBot has a simple "bad words list", and BetacommandBot has an IRC interface that is only accessible to one person.
• There is really no benefit to running three username reporting bots, when the HBC bot works as fine as it does. If there is some phrase that is reported by the other bots but not HBC, this can be fixed just as well by editing the blacklist. The only advantage I can think of is that the other bots would keep reporting if the HBC bot is down, but downtime has not been an issue so far, and this could also be achieved by having secondary copies of the HBC bot that are run by other people, and kick in if the main bot stops working.

Therefore, I suggest that BetacommandBot and DeadBot stop reporting usernames in light of the recent problems. Gandoman 08:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that I'm not much of a fan of betacommandbots work here, though I haven't seen much of this Deadbot. HBC Bots have always impressed me with their work. SGGH ^speak! 11:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. HBC is by far the most responsible bot. After my comments above that "almost all bot reports are invalid", I've looked at the difference between HBC and Beta. HBC doesn't make nearly as many invalid reports as Beta, because it has checks in place like the whitelist and the WAIT_TILL_EDIT rule. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. HBC is the best one, and we don't have such a mass of inappropriate names that we need to have three redundant bots. -Amarkov moo! 18:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I also agree, I can help move any keywords to the blacklist on HBC bot, I know a bit about regular expressions, and the flag system seems well documented. Until(1 == 2) 19:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I also agree. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree as well; I guess we need involvement from betacommand now, though. SamBC(talk) 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, apparently you can stop BetaCommandBot temporarily by leaving a note on its talk page. Is this the right step to take? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think it would be more polite to let betacommand have a say first, unless it goes completely haywire (which isn't really likely). SamBC(talk) 20:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Note. If it is decided that DeadBot should stop reporting usernames, please just blank User:DeadBot/UAABadwords which will stop it from editing WP:UAA without affecting the other things that Bot does. WjBscribe 20:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Betacommandbot does many things, it would be best to just let BC shut down this functionality. It would be nice to get a list of his "bad words", perhaps some can be migrated to HBCbot. Until(1 == 2) 21:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have shut down deadbot[4] and have left a message to BC[5] about shutting down this part of his bot. I assume this is in line with consensus based on the above discussion. Until(1 == 2) 18:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It would have been a bit nicer to notify the bot operators of this discussion - I would have liked to have my say. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 20:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I reverted your blacklist blanking and re-blanked using the proper summary - please read the instructions on the bots user page before doing major things such as that. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I assumed you had this page on your watchlist, otherwise I would have ensured you knew about it. Until(1 == 2) 23:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Another example of over-eager/moralistic interpretation of policy

The username Psychobitch69 was just blocked after being reported 3 times - once by a bot, twice by humans. The last human one even described the problem as being 'bitch is a bad phrase', which sounds like it was learned from one of the bots.

I was posting policy-based justification for this not being blatantly inappropriate, but the user was blocked and the entry removed while I was editing. I reproduce it here:

• • I fail to see how this is either confusing, misleading, disruptive, promotional or offensive; the policy doesn't say that profanity is against policy, it gives profanity as an example of something that may be disruptive, and being disruptive is against policy. "Usernames should not be considered inappropriate unless one of the general reasons applies" (emphasis in original) — the general reasons being the five I've quoted.
  • "bad phrase" is the kind of explanation the bots give; it's used as a suggestion that the username might be a problem. Please review the notes in the header at the top of this page; they've changed recently to clarify this.

I'd also previously pointed out that they weren't calling anyone a bitch but themself. This is an example of the kind of issues that myself and others have been raising lately. SamBC(talk) 03:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree the name is not a violation. Have you talked to the blocking admin? I don't see anything on his talk page. Regardless of the blocking admin I don't think it is appropriate for a name to be reported multiple times after it has been refused. It should go to RFCN if it is refused from here. Until(1 == 2) 04:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now... SamBC(talk) 04:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I am looking forward to the response. Until(1 == 2) 04:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. I not so sure as you guys that this is not a violation. Many people would consider the term bitch an anti-woman slur, (and I gather New York City Council is voting on whether to ban the term, [6]], hopeless but anyway!). Added to which we have clear sexual slang with 69. In combination, this seems disruptive to me. Slp1 12:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree it is within an admin's discretion in blocking usernames. I just would not have blocked this one myself. Until(1 == 2) 13:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. It might also be worth clarifying that I don't think this one was "refused" by an admin per se. It seems like SamBC disagreed with it and removed it, which is okay, but not quite the same thing.--Slp1 13:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, admins don't have exclusive authority to dispute reports here. An admin can block a name that has been removed, that is fine, but if any user removes a name from here(unless they are doing so without reason) then it should not be re-posted, but taken to to RFCN if anyone still objects. There are no written rules about who removes names, but I am pretty sure being an admin is no big deal. Until(1 == 2) 13:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I disagree with the block, but think it is within the admins discretion and thus a valid block. I think it was inappropriate for the same name to be reported here more than once instead of being taken to RFCN once rejected by a user in good standing acting in good faith. Until(1 == 2) 13:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, as noted above, that it is fair enough for anybody to remove a name. The problem I see with saying that names cannot be reported more that once is that it requires people to search through the history to see if it has been removed previously. Possible, but labourious especially if the user-name removed is not mentioned in the edit summary (though it was in this case). And then one would need to check the contribution history of the person who removed it to see if one thought it was an editor in good standing. Is this really practical? Is it really going to happen? In any case, I am not sure that this is an issue that often Slp1 14:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I was not suggesting that a person take research before submitting a name. But if a name is submitted again it would be reasonable to take it off based on the fact that it has already been rejected. Also I don't think one should knowingly replace a name hoping to get a different response. I am not sure if that is what happened here though. Until(1 == 2) 19:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I blocked this user because of my interpretation of WP:U, that is, profanities and obscenities, sexual slang, and references to genitalia are not allowed. That being said, it follows that "bitch" and "69" both fall in this range. Knowing that the user made no edits, I did a softblock to allow them to create another account. In my opinion, such a block is not different than what my colleagues and I have been doing since the creation of this noticeboard, nor does it violate any policy. I do, however, think that RFCN is the place to post a name rather than doing so multiple times on the noticeboard. bibliomaniac15 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the same person should not submit the same name again and again, hoping for a different response and that RFCN would be the correct route. That was not the case here, where a bot and two separate humans reported the name. I am not convinced that just because a name has been removed once that it is automatically subject to being removed from the list. In this case two people (forget the bot) thought the name was inappropriate and one thought it was okay. I don't think this is really consensus that the name is acceptable, do you? My feeling is that if a name gets reposted again (by a different person) then it is appropriate to allow more eyes to consider it either by not automatically removing it just because of the previous removal, or by requiring that it be reposted to RFCN (for the same reason). But like I said, I am not sure this happens that often anyway! --Slp1 12:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Knowing that the user made no edits, you violated WP:U, which tells you to wait for an edit. Since we're discussing it, it's far from blatant. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you quote me the part of the policy that says that? Because I see it use the word clear, as in referring to the certainty that it is a violation. The only time the word "blatant" is mentioned is when it says what to report here, not what to block. When it talks about what to block it says "Clearly inappropriate usernames should be reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, and can be blocked on sight by any administrator". It is not referring to the severity of the violation, but the certainty that it is a violation. Until(1 == 2) 17:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who ɹəədsɹ 's "you" (who "violated WP:U") refers to, but since I did not report this name either time nor block it (not that I could have!), it's sure not me! Until(1 == 2)'s question notwithstanding, I think it is clear from the discussion here that while some agree with Rspeer that this name was not blatantly or clearly inappropriate, there are others who disagree, and they are presumably entitled to their opinion too. --Slp1 19:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't see this phrase as offensive must not understand American slang. It's even worse than saying "dumb bastard". It doesn't matter if the user making the name refers to themselves or not, what matters is what the rest of use see and the web is not set up for mindreading.Rlevse 20:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Troll" matches

If we have an editor in good standing with the username "Trollderella", why is any username including the word "Troll" considered an automatic breach of policy? SamBC(talk) 17:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It implies the user is a going to troll us, it's in policy that we block usernames that imply an intent to cause trouble, that's why it may get reported by the bots. We use judgement to decide if it does in fact imply intent to cause trouble or it is a good faith username. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I quote policy "Usernames that allude to hacking, trolling, vandalism, legal threats, or computer viruses" Ryan Postlethwaite 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's one of those pre-emptive blocks. If they let another Trollderella through, then they might end up faced with another user who is outspoken about the treatment of newbies. (apologies for the sarcasm) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Troll" is a string which needs better whitelist coverage. With appropriate whitelisting, a lot of the false positives can be removed. This doesn't really apply to "Trollderella", but it would for things like "stroll" and "patroller"Leebo ^T/C 17:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Another point, of course, is that someone who's relatively new to the internet as a whole won't have any idea about this meaning of 'troll', and may instead be referring to something from fantasy, fairy tales, or mythology. So might anyone else. In this, as with everything, context is king - the word 'troll' does not necessarily allude to 'trolling'. SamBC(talk) 17:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And another point, referring to the specific example that caused me to start this section (the username "The Wayward Troll"); try doing a google search for the phrase "The Wayward Toll". You'll see that it's actually part of the title of a novelet. SamBC(talk) 17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is a good reason to make "troll" a wait-for-edit string, and to provide a note like "the string "troll" has many legitimate uses; please make sure the name refers to Internet disruption before blocking." Leebo ^T/C 17:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

These are username blocks leebo, not editing blocks - hence why it shouldn't matter if how they edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My word, this has been discussed numerous time before - we block these usernames to save the hassle of going through users contribs that have usernames that are considered disruptive, it's nothing against the user per se, it's just that many users that come into contact with them will waste time and effort checking through there contribs to make sure they aren't attempting to troll. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, I have to say I strongly disagree that any use of the word "troll" should be blocked. It really does depend on the context of it. Leebo ^T/C 18:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, there are times when the word troll would not be blocked, but based soley on the username - there are times when good faith users will be blocked as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Something is wrong then, if a good faith use of the word troll (not referring to disruption) gets blocked with no discussion. Leebo ^T/C 18:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If a user is trolling they get blocked for trolling - that is a behavioural block. A username block for implying an intent to troll, whether good faith or not, has nothing to do with an editing pattern. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Implying an intent to troll cannot be good faith, but a username can contain the string "troll" and not imply to troll. Leebo ^T/C 18:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless the name implies the intent to troll, as opposed to simply mentioning the word, then that is one thing. Otherwise I think it is a matter for RFCN. Until(1 == 2) 18:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added WAIT_TILL_EDIT and a note to the word "troll"[7]. Until(1 == 2) 18:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Wayward Troll", by Van Dahl - that's not really an acceptable username for obvious reasons, despite it's existence elsewhere. Likewise, we wouldn't permit something like Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel because it's too long and was also a election candidate's assumed name during a UK General Election. Nick 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Being more careful about blocking will necessarily let real vandals edit a bit longer, yes, but that is nowhere near the end of the world. False positives and overzealous blocks are far more harmful than a vandal getting to edit once. UAA's reason for being is to enforce the username policy, not to be the first line of defense against vandalism. RC patrollers do a perfectly good job at that, and they do it based on actual edits rather than speculation about what newbies might do. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the example of Mr. Biscuitbarrel is someone who should just be warned -- they're not doing anything blatant or harmful. And what if the aforementioned silly politician decided to actually edit Wikipedia, using his best-known name? Even in less-silly cases, there have been numerous instances of famous people getting insta-blocked, without a warning, for impersonating themselves. What a way for Wikipedia to make a good impression. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd hope nobody would consider blocking something like Mr. Biscuitbarrel straight away, that's the sort of account that should be gently guided into changing their username through encouragement, not through a block or even templating them. Make it personal and pleasant. Users choosing an interesting or clever username should be afforded a little extra leeway, common or garden vandals don't normally have the patience or intelligence to come up with something smart and interesting, but if it's clear cut, there's no option to block, really. I'm certainly happier to see a couple of vandals get away with a couple of extra edits than a couple of good users blocked and turned away from editing Wikipedia at an early stage, all within reason though. Nick 19:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just in terms of verbal reasoning, how does "not really acceptable" mean the same thing as "blatantly imappropriate"? Immediate blocking is only for "blatantly inappropriate" usernames. SamBC(talk) 19:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Consider them the same thing, but the later said in a much more pleasent and restrained manner, much less likely to cause upset compared with the former. Nick 19:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No Sam, that is not what it says. It says that only blatant names should be reported to UAA. It says only clearly inappropriate names should be blocked on sight. It refers to the certainty that it is a violation, not the grossness of it. It says to discuss "borderline" cases, not minor cases. Until(1 == 2) 23:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Does WT:U support UAA?

(This is posted in response to Ryan Postlethwaite's comment above, in #Domain names, suggesting that I and others are ignoring a consensus on talk pages.)

Ryan, I assure you, I have been avidly following WT:U, but I'm a bit confused why you're pointing me there. Are you calling that a consensus for UAA?

What I see there are some ordinary discussions of subtleties of the username policy (yes, the policy does in fact have subtleties), then a massive horde of Village Pump commenters objecting to the way UAA does things, and then a few people like me and SamBC who actually went to the effort to stick around after the Village Pump discussion and do something about it. Oh, and also on the topic of the history of this place, there's also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names from April. It was closed as "reform", which seems to have been disregarded -- instead of reforming, the RFCN people created the even more unaccountable process of UAA. Wake up: the majority of Wikipedia is opposed to what you do. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I hear you objecting with the power of 7 people. Why aren't these other people here complaining? Why isn't there a consensus for change on the policy page? Until(1 == 2) 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I could ask you the contrary question: why are you only defending UAA here, on UAA's own talk page, a place that's normally occupied mainly by people who like the state of UAA, instead of defending it to the community at large? I can see many reasons why they're not coming here, and one reason is that if you discuss the problems of a group on a group's own page, it's extremely easy to bury the discussion. This effect has been recognized and taken into account, when it came to things like the Counter Vandalism Unit or Esperanza, and that's why the decisions to delete them had to come from outside.

I'm impressed that more people besides me have taken the problem all the way to the talk page that's at the center of the issue, the place that's going to be inherently hostile to their views. And as for the others, I don't think their opinions are any less valid just because they've failed to state them in three different places. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This would be the place to discuss issues with the noticeboard, so I don't see why I should go all over the Wiki to discuss it anywhere else. I really don't think there is much wrong with this board, it does a fine job. Are we in line with WT:U? Not sure, but we are in line with WP:U. I don't see how the current system is not accountable, and I don't see this majority against UAA. Until(1 == 2) 20:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if all of the activity and actions resulting from WP:UAA are entirely in line with WP:U, as people seem to use the examples within the general points as a sort of checklist, and ignore the point saying that, to be a violation, it has to meet a problem with on of the general points themselves; the examples aren't entirely clear-cut, as several sections here have discussed. SamBC(talk) 20:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a valid concern, do you have examples of this happening? Until(1 == 2) 21:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Your very strict interpretation of WP:U, which you seem to be claiming is the only one possible, is an interpretation which the village pump discussion pointed out is not in line with WP:BITE. You can't blindly apply a minor policy without examining its context in Wikipedia as a whole, and this may involve sometimes coming out of your corner of Wikipedia and discussing it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not the only one possible, I never said that. What I am saying is you can interpret WP:U one way and another admin can another. If people are blocking contrary to policy then talk with the admin who did it, I just don't see how this noticeboard is the issue. This is just the place where names are brought to admins attention, it does not decide what to do with them, individuals do. Until(1 == 2) 21:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been using all my free time for two days to talk to the people who make unjustified blocks. It hasn't been very much appreciated, and I can't do this forever.

UAA is a support group where the individuals who make bad blocks get to rationalize their decisions, and that will only change if you're willing to listen to input from outside. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If discussion with the blocking admin is unfruitful make a posting at WP:AN explaining why you think it is contrary to policy. If that does not work then it is probably within policy. We are listening, but the problem you have is with the people reporting and the people blocking, not the manner in which this page is set up. This page is just a tool, the finer points of username blocking should be discussed at WT:U, discussions on how this board should run can be discussed here. Until(1 == 2) 21:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a forum-shopping list you've got for me. If I brought the problems here to WP:AN and people agreed that it's bad, would that make you any more willing to change things than when it already happened on the village pump? I actually think that WP:VPP has more relevance to this issue than WP:AN. The problem is with the way a policy is being enforced, not a few isolated administrative actions. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is not to say that every username-blocking admin is guilty. The problem is, perhaps, inconsistency. SamBC(talk) 22:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I am saying Rspeer is that I don't think these blocks are contrary to policy, and I think if you challenged these blocks at WP:AN people would just say it is within policy. WP:BLOCK suggests this route in contesting a block if you cannot come to an agreement with the blocking admin. Short of a consensus that these blocks are invalid I am just going to continue to believe my reading of the policy that allows for the immediate block of violations that are clear. Until(1 == 2) 23:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

"Block and then discuss"

Ryan Postlethwaite said above, "But the fact is, every time they edit they promote the website of their domain username, that's why we block and then discuss".

The practice of "block and then discuss" isn't supported by WP:U at all. If there's something to discuss, then it's not "blatant" or "clear" or whichever adjective from WP:U you choose to refer to, so it isn't a case where you're allowed to block on sight. And I am unimpressed by the justification for this practice based on its supposed urgency. BLP is urgent. Blocking active vandals and spammers is urgent. Preventing a name from showing up in an article history is not urgent.

Here's an example of why "block and then discuss" is wrong (which happened to be the issue that started off this whole debate): User talk:Ggggggggggggggg12. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

But it does say to block on sight clear violations. If something is clearly a domain name, and is seen as promotional, then it is a clear violation and should be blocked on sight. That is what the policy says. "Inappropriate usernames"..."Promotional usernames that attempt to promote a group or company on Wikipedia"..."web page addresses are generally considered likely to be promotional"..."Clearly inappropriate usernames should be reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, and can be blocked on sight by any administrator". "Clearly" does not be "egregiously" or "very", it means without doubt a violation. Until(1 == 2) 22:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not as though the user cannot just create an appropriate name and continue, or even change the name of their existing account. Until(1 == 2) 22:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please think back to when you were a newbie. Would you know the options available to you when you're blocked? Remember, all you get is a block page full of inscrutable Wikipedia jargon, and maybe the same jargon as a message on your talk page. I continue to disagree with your idea that blocking does no damage, and User talk:Ggggggggggggggg12 is a clear case of this. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The block message very clearly explains that they can create a new account or challenge the block, or request a name change. If you think the template is not clear, then you should reword it. Until(1 == 2) 15:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that repeating letters are not an urgent concern. The bot can be told to WAIT until an edit in those cases. While I don't believe this needs an immediate block, and you don't either, another admin may think differently, and if it is clear that it is a violation(which it is) a block is justified under policy. That user may have been irritated, but people get irritated when I insist on reliable sources for controversial claims about living people, it does not mean they are being bitten. Until(1 == 2) 22:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, what do we do when they edit? Do we also block on sight (assuming the edit is legit)? I think the problem might be to either block or not block in the case of repeating letters. My problem with repeating letters or gibberish is that it is harder for everyone to differentiate two user having these. For example User:Ggggggggggg, User:Gggggggggggg, User:Ggggggggggggg, and User:Zxdfgzsegzsrr and User:Zxdcfdffdg (all these users exist). Of course you can look-up the contribs, but a well formed username makes it easier for everyone. {{uw-ublock}}, which is the block message for all username blocks, explains how to contest the block if they think their username is legitimate. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about blocking a newbie to make life marginally easier for Wikipedians who somehow can't click on a link. Explaining how to fix your block doesn't mean it didn't do any damage. If they edit, the edit is legit, and you don't like their username, the obvious thing to do is to leave a message, possibly {{UsernameConcern}}, on their talk page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone registers an account, say something like "daveon.tv", then that doesn't need to be blocked unless they start spamming links to that website, or do something else we would block any other user for. If someone registers "www.verycheapviarga.net" then we would have to block right away. Nick 22:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally agree, "tv" might be short for "Trivalis" or some other surname, people often use decimals(.) instead of spaces. Once again, in this grey area it is natural for different admins to make different decisions. The content of the website "daveon.tv" may influence an admins decision as well. Until(1 == 2) 22:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally disagree (we are speaking in the case where the website clearly exists). As Until(1 == 2) says, every time they edit, the username is printed in every log and is an advertisement, in my opinion. For me, User:Www.Fnoware.st, User:Www.chucknorris.com and User:Www.YouTube.com are advertisements in the same sense than User:Enjoy a delicious Big Mac at McDonald's today! is. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it so important to get these weak "advertisements" out of page histories (and, incidentally, into the block log) that you don't have time to assume good faith? No one has addressed the idea of domain names that are intended as handles, not as advertisements.

Think of the "daveon.tv" example. Suppose "daveon.tv" is the blog of some guy named Dave, who writes an entertaining series of posts about what it's like to be on a game show or something, a fair number of people end up reading his blog. Now he's best known online as "daveon.tv". So when he signs up for Wikipedia, he uses the same name. He's not trying to promote himself, he's just being consistent. There's no particular reason he wants Wikipedians to go read his blog.

That may sound like a contrived example, but I actually know people who use domain names as online handles, and this will only become more prevalent as OpenID catches on.

So I disagree that mentioning something is always the same as promoting it, so this is yet another case where you can't say a name is automatically a "blatant infringement of username policy". You'd block User:Enjoy a delicious Big Mac at McDonald's today!, but you wouldn't block User:McDonald. I'm not promoting "rspeer" with every edit, right? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Rspeer, Id like to remind admins of a simple yet effective rule, WP:COMMONSENSE the McDonald is a simple comparison per common sense the Enjoy.... would be blocked for adverts while the fact that McDonald is a family name (I think its a Scottish name). while they are both fairly similar if you apply commonsense the difference is very clear. Again lets use commonsense daveon.tv appears to be a harmless username. .tv is a little used domain and thus daveon.tv would be a harmless user name Dave On TV. but other usernames such as those with .com in them should not be allowed because that is an obvious ref to a website. β^_command 23:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you really mean that you're going to look at the domain suffix instead of whether there's actual promotion going on? Replace the "daveon.tv" example with "daveontv.com" and nothing changes. (In fact, this example aside, the kind of sites that set up a .tv domain are more likely to be purely promotional.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Rspeer, you keep talking about assuming good faith. What you need to understand is that a username block is not an assumption of bad faith. Until(1 == 2) 23:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

How can it be? If they have a really offensive username, but are a new, enthusiastic editor - it doesnt matter. They are blocked (unless its not that blatant, and sometimes they are asked to change name) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Rspeer, I don't think good or bad faith have anything to do here. If the username is a violation of WP:U, the fact that the user chose it in good or in bad faith does not matter. If the concern is that it is promotional, or refers to IRL violent actions, it is a violation on its own merits (regardless of the fact that User:Diet coke is editing Diet Coke or not) and shouldn't be used any more. We leave 2 options to these editors, they can either just create an other account, or ask the account to be renamed. I fail to see what we should do. If I think a username violates WP:U, why should I let this user continue using it, if in any case he's gonna end up blocked? -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You keep implying that good-faith newbies understand these options, and will use them instead of wandering off to a friendlier site, in the face of evidence to the contrary. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if the name needs to be blocked anyways then talking to the person ahead of time is just lip service. It is falsely giving them the impression that they have a choice in the matter, which I think is far ruder. Discussion is for borderline cases where the input of the user can make a difference in the determination. Until(1 == 2) 16:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they'll change it. Perhaps it doesn't "need to be blocked" just because it has a swearword or a domain suffix in it. If it weren't for the UAA assumption that every user that violates WP:U in any minor way is predestined to be blocked, maybe the input of the user could make a difference. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Dontblockmeihavechildren

That is a classic SGGH ^speak! 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hah, awesome! :) Jmlk17 09:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Reducing false positives

When you see a false positive bot report that can be avoided by white-listing a word, please make a note here or on the bots whitelist talk page about it. There will be less false positives in the future. I just added schinke, which I am told means ham in German, and another name with "shit" in it "misashito". Names in particular should be whitelisted.

The whitelist is the main defense against false positives and is not really being used very much. We can save a lot of time, and the improvements will be cumulative and lasting. Until(1 == 2) 06:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User readding name repeatedly.

User:Balls4balls is being repeatedly re-added by User:JetLover. Following previous discussion here, it seems appropriate to re-remove it. User has been told on their talk page, my talk page, and the edit summary, to take it to WP:RFCN. Can people clarify, based on their experience etc, what an appropriate step now is? SamBC(talk) 22:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Leave it, I agree WP:RFCN is the best measure. GDonato (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

He appears to want an admin to review the case, so I'll tell him here and now it's not a case for WP:UAA. Nick 23:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bots?

Is it just me, or are the HBC bots not on/working right now? Jmlk17 09:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's not just you unfortunately, they have been down for the past 3 hours or so... --_{Hdt83 Chat} 09:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn...no bueno. Jmlk17 09:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

IT's definitely not doing its job. Where are you bot?Rlevse 13:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be back online. Jmlk17 01:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the bots are down. Secretlondon 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the one that cleans the lists up is definitely working, it just removed something. SamBC(talk) 18:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the name reporting one I'm worried about - nothing since this morning and we've had some clear cut ones since then - like one with Nazi in. Secretlondon 18:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Per my reply on my talk, the bot's connection to IRC was interrupted in such a way that the bot shut down, but it has now been restarted, and looks like it just made its first report, so all is well again. Thanks for also letting me know on my talk, that and/or e-mail are the best ways to make sure I find out about problems like this most efficiently. —Krellis (Talk) 18:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand what changed. We had HBC bot for ages and it worke beautifully, and suddenly it went and we had three bots working. I'm all confused. Why is High in BC's bot not still working? SGGH ^speak! 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The original bot was stopped, and a new clone of it started. At around the same time as the clone started, User:DeadBot and User:BetacommandBot both started work on UAA. Now, it's only the clone namewatcher bot, as it was the best version. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Either way, we have a bot again! :) Jmlk17 09:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the older admins are laughing at us going 'We used to remove these by hand before, y'know!' while strummin' their ukeleles... ~ Riana ⁂ 09:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I bet they are. We're spoiled now :). Jmlk17 09:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies

I apologize for my erroneous reports today, I will try to be more thoughtful in the future in reporting usernames. However, I have to confess that I do get offended in real life when people talk about bodily functions.--Alasdair 06:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

blocking people with "sexy" in their name

Hello, I was just wondering what the reason for blocking people with "sexy" in their name is. If you look at the definition on wiktionary, which I believe to be correct, you can see that "sexy" does not necessarily have anything to do with sexuality. The policy is "Usernames that include profanity, or obscenities, or references to genitalia or sexual slang." Obviously none of the first 3 apply, one could wonder about "sexual slang" however on wiktionary, it does not say the word is slang, and I think even in the case of "The participants in the swimsuit competition are all very sexy", the relation to sexual intercourse is very limited almost inexistent. In the case of User:Sexyberger, I think he probably meant to spell sexyburger, as it berger doesn't mean anything in English, and if he meant burger then it corresponds to the second definition: (of a thing or concept) Very attractive or appealing. Often people with names like "joe is sexy" are blocked, but even though self glorification is a bit silly, having a userpage like this is hardly any better. I think it is more of a light hearted joke. Jackaranga 15:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jackaranga on this, although I can't think of any more supporting argumments right now. SamBC(talk) 15:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess it really depends on what follows the "sexy" part of the name... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The ones that get to RFCN tend to be allowed: Sexc tomboi chik (Allow), Sexibiotch123 (Disallow because of the Biotch part), and Sexalicious Pimed Studmuffins (Allow). I agree, sexy is innocuous by itself and does not seem to violate WP:U. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with sexy, though that's not to say it could never be inappropriate, I don't think it is inappropriate or against policy per se. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Here was my rationale, which I guess everyone won't agree with or see..the "berger" part was a play on "burger" ("play ons" have often been blocked), making it "sexy burger" which can refer to female private areas.Rlevse 16:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

While I'm sure you have a basis for that, I can't find any reference for that meaning. If you have a reference, I think that would probably convince everyone enough. SamBC(talk) 16:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Only what I've heard in real life. Slang does vary from place to place. If someone wants to unblock it, I won't object.Rlevse 19:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have read that as sexy bugger - still very mild. Be/urger doesn't mean anything other than food here, afaik. Secretlondon 19:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word "sexy" on its own isn't a violation and shouldn't be blocked. Where its combined with other words, people should use their own judgment - block/don't block/send to RFCN. I think I removed "Sexystorm" or something a while back that clearly wasn't a violation. Similarly "SexySuzie" seems fine - this one seems borderline to me but Rlevse's rationale for blocking makes sense. WjBscribe 19:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think that "sexy" is not an automatic violation. This is an area where admin discretion comes into play. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What, in particular, would it be a violation of? If you're going to say it falls under the "offensive" clause, it is not your job to protect users who are so sheltered that the word "sexy" offends them. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It comest down to context doesn't it? "Sexyladyonwiki" just slips into the okay zone, but "sexybigblackguy4u" would probably get blocked. A finite line. SGGH ^speak! 15:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yikes!

UAA has reports coming out the wazoo (whatever that means) is anyone else going to help me out here? :D SGGH ^speak! 21:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ariel can't do much, but she can hand SGGH a cup of coffee to keep him going! ^Ariel♥Gold 21:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Backlogged cleared, bleh.... SGGH ^speak! 21:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

R would help SGGH, but he can't, for technical reasons. :] --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 11:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Policy 5?

A question about policy 5 of WP:U, which I have brought up on some users' talk pages. As I understand the policy, even straightforward, non-slangy non-'vulgar' references to such things as excretory functions are in violation. So wouldn't any mention of urination or defecation, even if relatively innocuously worded as 'pee', warrant a username block? I assure you I am no Puritan, but the policy seems fairly cut and dry here. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally think, as is the case with many names, you have to look at context and intent. For instance, would you block the name Pee Wee Player? (Pee Wee baseball is a legitimate name). Should the name Pooper Scooper be blocked? (I'm not saying these are okay, or not okay, just examples of that line.) Granted, there are obvious violations, but there are others that ride that thin line between what the user intended, and being a violation. Of course, some of the time the user makes the decision easy for the admins by their contributions, either helpful or harmful, so that is always something to look at when wondering about names, too. ^Ariel♥Gold 07:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'll check their contribs more thoroughly before making a report.--Alasdair 07:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Just tonight, Alasdair was questioned by an admin for adding User:Peehahalol, whereas my report of User:Pee pee ramone resulted in a block. So I don't mean the word 'pee' as in 'pee wee', but as a straightforward term, there seems to be some disagreement. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As a straightforward term, I'd say block, until WP:U is changed. Simple. --DarkFalls ^talk 08:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No - policy isn't law - it's about the spirit of the policy, we don't take it as though it were code. If an interpretation of a policy is harmful we ignore it. Secretlondon 09:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That begs the of who gets to decide what is an isn't harmful and when to ignore it. Admins don't even agree on these things.Rlevse 10:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hrmm. Well, I read the first name as "Pee haha lol". I'd think that would be a valid report. But, you could also read it as "Peeha Halol", which would be just another name, yes? (Okay, I think we all know the intent was probably the former, but just playing devil's advocate, lol) I dunno, when I'm in doubt, what I do is go to WP:RFCN first. I mean, there are most certainly obvious names that need blocks, but when it is something on that "fine line", I either drop the username concern note on the editor's page, or I take it to RFCN for discussion and other opinions (and I think it is guideline that if you take it to RFCN, you should drop that note on the page as well to allow them to participate in the discussion). A good example of that would be a "corporate" name that has made no edits. It is hard to know the intent without edits, and some users may have simply chosen a name that happens to also be the name of some company out there (granted, the majority of the time these names are used for promotional reasons). But if you feel the name, even without edits, has such undertones of promotion that it would be unharmonious or promotional simply by someone reading the name, go ahead and report it, that's okay too. I think you're doing fine! ^Ariel♥Gold 08:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Peeha... lol. Seriously, if you told me that was a tropical fruit, I'd believe you! :) This stuff seriously makes me giggle. Like when I fought to save Sit on My Face so valiantly from deletion. I brought this issue up mostly b/c I felt bad for poor Alasdair, who was put in a position of defending himself. It's ok that you're offended by the word pee!! Oops sorry I just said it! Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey I don't make this stuff up ya know! Peeha is real!. ^Ariel♥Gold 08:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Oh well, then that person has to state he's Polynesian on his user page, haha.--Alasdair 08:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, speaking of which, one of my reports on a username with the word polygamist has been rejected, because polygamy is not offensive. I mean, for some (or many) cultures in this world, it is. Anyway, I've created a shortcut to the "Inappropriate usernames" section of WP:U. It is WP:IU, it will certainly make it easily to cite the policy.--Alasdair 08:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that submission about the polygamy. And the thing is, it is a valid way of life for a lot of cultures, not the majority, but in history, and in indigenous cultures, it is part of anthropology. That's not to say I wouldn't have reported it as well, had I seen it, but just that I understand the rationale for not blocking it. And I think you're doing fine, no worries! ^Ariel♥Gold 08:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Alasdair, I feel the need to make you aware of WP:RFCN. If you are unsure about whether there is a violation, or if you find a borderline username that could potentially be a vio, but not a blatant one, a report to RFCN can often be the way to go. there, the community can discuss the name at further length, and a decision can be made, based on the comments of the community. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take that in mind in the future.--Alasdair 08:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, even if the user meant peehah halo not pee haha lol I would still request a change, because most other people would read pee haha lol and be offended or amazed that such a username exists. Hence why I was always uncomfortable with this indian names that have the letters "shit" in them, yes it is not offensive to Indians and isn't meant to be offensive to anyone, but a lot of people are still going to see "shit". I've always wondered how WP:U stands on that kind of thing. In answer to Rlevse question about who decides what is offensive when admins don't agree with each other on the policy, at the moment it just comes down to individual admins. It is getting the job done at the moment though isn't it? I wonder sometimes if we are over-questioning the system? SGGH ^speak! 15:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think blocking newbies who haven't edited yet and haven't actually disrupted anything is "the job" that needs to be done, you have lost perspective on what Wikipedia is for. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm... that's not what I do nor what I was refering to so no I don't think that is what needs to be done and I have not lost perspective on anything :) SGGH ^speak! 20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it takes a serious misreading of WP:U to think that every username matching one of the example reasons merits a block. Notice the text below that says that you should apply common sense, and that usernames are only violations if they match one of the five top-level reasons. To put it another way, you should not think that you can give "example 3 of policy 5" as a reason in a situation where "policy 5" itself does not apply.

Reproductive or excretory functions, for example, are examples listed under offensive usernames. A username involving the word "pee" out of context is not offensive. Juvenile, perhaps, but we don't insta-block people for being juvenile. Even if "pee" somehow offends you, it is certainly not so blatant that you need to skip all the more reasonable steps and put it on UAA. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I think that taking the examples as actual categorical breaches is one of the most common misapplications of WP:U, but there's been recent improvement. SamBC(talk) 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Snakepoop2 is a user that was flagged up a bit ago. I'm getting confused by all this discussion of policy. What would people do with this one? SGGH ^speak! 21:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Snakepoop2 is a clear violation in my view. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that it's just on the "blatant" side of the line between blatant/handle at UAA and dubious/handle at RFCN. It has the distinct feel, the flavour, the je ne sai quois, of an intent to be offensive and likelihood of causing offence. SamBC(talk) 23:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying it's okay to block someone for what you presume their "intent" to be, based on "je ne sai quois"? If you want to block someone for vandalism, wait until they vandalize. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say it is reasonable for someone to be offended by the crap of any animal. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't, and I certainly don't think anything is so offensive about "snakepoop" that blocking is the appropriate remedy instead of warning. This is why RFCN exists. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume you have not had much contact with snake poop. It is just as bad as other types of poop. Even if it does not offend you I think it is reasonable to think it has a high likely hood of offending. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone else took care of it in the end when I wasn't around, I can't find it in the history at the moment so am not sure what happened. Will check RFCN. SGGH ^speak! 18:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(e/c):::It says under the policy, references to excretory functions, not curse words or slurs. So if it's not ambiguous like 'poopedout' (which could of course mean 'tired'), I think blocking a UAA reported 'snakepoop' is fine. The problem is, having 'offensive' as the core policy is subjective and difficult to achieve consensus on. For example, I might be completely offended by the name 'Brobdingnag' because among my group of friends, it's an unforgivable insult. But somehow I think no one would accept the blocking of that user if I reported it to UAA, despite my complete and utter offense at the name. By the same token, I could just really not care about racial and sexist slurs, and refuse to report or block such usernames because I simply wasn't affected by them. But again, I doubt I would receive support in overturning a block on a slur-containing name by insisting on my personal lack of offense at the term. The subcategories of the 'offensive' policy are an attempt to qualify and categorize what can reasonably be constituted as an unacceptable username right off the bat. I don't think the word 'pee' or 'poop' is offensive in the sense of making us avert our eyes in horror from the screen, but in that it has no place in a username and is justified in blocking on sight by an admin when unambiguous. What terminology is fair game for inclusion in Wikipedia's mainspace and other areas is a different matter all together. Ultimately it will be up to the discretion of the individual admin whether a user gets blocked or not, but an editor can hardly be faulted for bringing a name to UAA that violates any of the subcategories of the offensive category. ~Eliz81^(C) 18:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course an editor can be faulted for bringing a borderline name to UAA, because the instructions say not to do that. When you file a report on UAA as the first step, you're skipping over several potential remedies, such as warning the user and discussing the name on RFCN. When you post on UAA, you are saying "I am certain that this username needs to be blocked immediately". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. 'Pee' is a reference to an excretory function. Other admins *do* block reports to UAA for the inclusion of this word and others in the username. Please take into account that your interpretation of the policy is not the only one among administrators. ~Eliz81^(C) 07:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And you were hoping one of those admins would get to the report first? I am fully aware that this is controversial, as are you, but you're the one who posted it on UAA as if it wasn't. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

IF I were to go to the local swimming pool and announced my intention as above I doubt they'd let me in. Similarly the above username suggests an intent to introduce unsavourary content to wikipedia. Agathoclea 07:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"Intent" is not a reason to block. You can't block users for something you think they're going to do in the future. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've now posted the name on RFCN, where it should have been in the first place. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

While I still hold a different interpretation of policy 5, the discussion on this page alone indicates that RFCN is the appropriate forum right now for the pee-type names. I apologize for bringing the pool-peeing guy to UAA since this matter was already up for discussion. I encourage the administrators to come to a consensus on this: to pee or not to pee, that is the question. (someone had to say it.) ~Eliz81^(C) 09:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Something meeting any of the examples of one of the five possible violations is not, simply be meeting the example, a violation. This is made clear below the five violation categories. The examples give guidance, but care must be taken that the username objectively meets one of the 5 criteria, not simply the examples. Thus, references to excretory functions are not violations unless they are offensive. The policy does not say that all references to excretory functions are offensive, it gives them as an example of something that may well be offensive. Does anyone disagree with this interpretation of the policy? SamBC(talk) 12:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, in the spirit of this discussion, including User:Snakepoop above, I brought User:Pooopy to WP:RFCN, where I was promptly told it belonged at WP:UAA. Are we saying that the poop usernames are not up for debate, but the pee ones are?? This is getting quite frustrating and confusing. ~Eliz81^(C) 21:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This may be in part because different people, including different admins, disagree as to the nature of this. That said, I can't imagine User:Pooopy ever not getting blocked - it seems that plenty of people find it offensive, strange as that seems to me, and feel that the very existence of it would prevent reasonable discussion and editing. SamBC(talk) 22:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, sometimes admins disagree on things. I think you did the right thing to post it on RFCN. I'll accept the emerging consensus that juvenile scatological terms should be considered "blatantly offensive", but I really have to wonder why it's that important.

Meanwhile, I'm finding this pattern a bit odd. I surmise that someone is watching this page and creating these usernames just to get a reaction from a bunch of admins. I think this is an example of why we should wait for an edit in most cases -- there are so many names we just shouldn't waste our time on, because they're never going to edit anyway. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In such a case, a hard block is appropriate.Rlevse 12:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to the baiting, do we then need a checkuser to see if they are all one person, and hardblock the IP if it's not too dynamic, or what? SamBC(talk) 12:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is really silly. Perhaps "poop" and "pee" are not so blatant that all would put them here, but they are blatant enough that if someone does report it here they are not "wrong" and should not be templated as though they were. We should not have sincere username reporters get templated for posting a name here, then go to RFCN to be told this is obviously a violation. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Using templates like that may intimidate sincere users - it's also really rude. User:Rspeer seems to be in a minority on this issue. Secretlondon 14:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Rspeer if you had consensus for your standards that would be one thing, but you have had a history of "correcting" people for posts to UAA that are not generally considered incorrect. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's a majority opinion beyond UFAA regulars, then try to get WP:U amended, for example removing or changing the bit that says that the username has to meet on of the five main reasons, not just one of the examples. It's not fair for RFAA to determine its own consensus different from the more widely-participated-in WP:U consensus. This page is to enforce the policy that the wider community has agreed upon. SamBC(talk) 14:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't allow people with names like "Poopman" or whatever, even if poop is not considered vulgar, it really doesn't lend much credibility to their contributions. Jackaranga 14:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is considered vulgar, we will not allow such names, do not worry. If anyone proposes to remove such restrictions from the policy you have my assurances I will resist it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy as written doesn't disallow names for being "vulgar", it disallows them for being "offensive". Not everything vulgar is offensive, and names failing to "lend much credibility to … contributions" isn't something that WP:U seems to aim to address. If you think that policy is out of line with practice, try to get consensus for a change to match practice. If the broader (than WP:UFAA regulars) community does not give consensus for the change, then the practice should change to match the wishes of the broader community. Admins are the servants of the community, after all. SamBC(talk) 14:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Vulgar means "offensive" or "common". I agree that names that are vulgar only in that they are common should no be disallowed. But we are not using the term "vulgar" to mean common, so it does in fact mean offensive. Pee and Poo are offensive. If you don't believe so, bring the topic up at your next dinner party. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, wikipedia is hardly a dinner party, but anyway... I refer you to my response to essentially the same point at WT:U. The gist is that there's meanings other than "offensive" and "common", such as "coarse". SamBC(talk) 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well a course name would be blocked if it was offensive as well, but not simply for being coarse. My argument is references to pee and poop are offensive, the definition of vulgarity is really of little importance. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing thoughts for policy 5 discussion

So it's emerging consensus that 'pee' and 'poo' usernames (using common sense) are fair game for UAA and will not result in templates for misuse. At the start of this discussion, Alasdair was among the first victims of inconsistent admin actions, and was clearly intimidated. It would've been easier for me to back off instead of trying to get consensus. At times I felt intimidated and considered quitting UAA, but I chose to press on, relying on my good faith. My advice is, in future disputes, discuss it on the relevant talk page before unilateral action, and take the intimidation factor into account. Direct or indirect accusations towards editors caught in a rule-interpretation crossfire do not address the underlying problem and scare off good contributors. ~Eliz81^(C) 19:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically - we go partly on contributions too. People with crude/childlike/offensive usernames generally don't make useful contributions. If they have a possibly borderline username but only have vandalism contributions they'll be blocked. It's always about the encyclopedia and never about the rules. We have Ignore all rules for a reason! If people are trying to intimidate people by using templates then that needs to be dealt with. Repeat templating is intimidation, and it is always better to write in your own words anyway. Secretlondon 19:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:U

Just so everyone knows, we're now discussing potential policy changes here, please everyone feel free to weigh in there. ~Eliz81^(C) 21:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

RFCN

Could I also put forward a suggestion that people place reports that are to be discussed rather than dealt with outright over to RFCN at the first (or second) sign of discussion? Yesterday (and at other times to) we have ended up with 6 or 7 lines of discussion on the UAA page which can just clog it up. I suggest that if there is going to be discussion, get it off UAA quickly and over to RFCN, you can copy over the comments that already exist if it helps the RFCN report. Is that a fair suggestion? :) SGGH ^speak! 10:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I'd say that UAA is to RFCN as PROD is to AFD. UAA isn't the main process, it's just a convenient tool to get things done faster and avoid backlogs. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes a little discussion - eg asking the proposer what the obscenity is in case of regional slang is worthwhile and doesn't need moving. Ones that need proper discussion should be moved obviously. Secretlondon 16:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Having read the discussion, one thing that concerns me is what appears to be sometimes people are told to take a name the report here to RFCN, and then in RFCN they are told it's too obvious, it should be brought back here. Doesn't it make more sense for the process to match AfD and Speedy Deletes? In AfD, if it becomes clear that it matches a Speedy criterion, they close it as a delete, and delete it. Why can't the same apply with usernames? Rather then RFCN saying "take it to UAA", why not simply have that process delete it, but let the reporting user know, politely, that UAA was the better place so that the reporting user (who I'm sure did so in Good Faith) can learn of the appropriate place to take "obvious" problem usernames? — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sensible suggestion. I think with the discussion here, more admins were made aware of the UAA/RFCN discrepancy, which is the first step. But it's true, when AfDs get speedied no one really criticizes the nominator. Better to be safe with AfDs, and RFCNs. (I think this was part of Rspeer's point.) Speaking of which, why don't we have a process for usernames similar to article deletion, where we'd tag the userpages or something and they'd go into a category like Category:Usernames in violation? Just a thought. ~Eliz81^(C) 03:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That category does indeed exist. If anyone places the {{usernameconcern}} template on a user's page, the username is added to the Category:Usernames editors have expressed concern over, and HBC AIV helperbot4 adds that to the UAA report. (Example: here) ^Ariel♥Gold 09:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it only added it to an existing report at UAA, not added the name itself to UAA. I was thinking of the tagging system working like CSD, where there isn't a need to consolidate reports on a particular page other than the category label's. ~Eliz81^(C) 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Names ending in "porn"

Hi, just wanted to let you know that Thai names commonly end in "porn". I see that users Chuleeporn (talk · contribs) and Klingsporn (talk · contribs) were recently reported by the bot and blocked for username violations. Searching Google reveals that Chuleeporn is a Thai name, while Klingsporn seems to be a German name. These users should be unblocked. Also, maybe a warning should be added when the bot reports names with "porn", warning people to check if the username is a legitimate name before blocking. Is he back? 10:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is true. A Miss Universe was Thai and her first name is Porntip.Rlevse 16:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a note for the Bot to leave when reporting names for containing the word "porn" - [8]. WjBscribe 17:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, her name is Porntip NakhirunkanokRlevse 19:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked both names.Rlevse 19:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Post block notices

Re the above thread, seems the blocking admin did NOT put the username block notice on the userpages. This is not done all too often. Please post a notice to all blocked usernames.Rlevse 16:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

They get it when they try and edit - I don't leave a message if it seems to be a repeat offender as it feels like we are rewarding them somehow. Secretlondon 17:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure leaving the message is that useful - they get all the info on the block screen when they try to edit. Creating a talkpage to include {{usernameblocked}} just creates extra maintenance work for admins who periodically clean out Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages and I'm not sure there's much benefit. If they already have a talkpage I leave the message- if not, I don't. WjBscribe 17:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I always leave a message - always the template and usually some free-text. A lot of new editors choose wholly inappropriate names, but know no better. Some will become productive editors if the problem is explained. And yes, some will not. But I feel that more will, and fewer will be permanently put off, if an explanation is given. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

{{UsernameBlocked}} on it's own gives no specific reason why the username is inappropriate, so putting it as the block reason is not enough. We must put the temlate on the user talk page as well, quoting a specific reason in the parser that it is against policy. E.g. {{subst:UsernameBlocked|reason why the username is against policy}}. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You can use the format {{UsernameBlocked|reason why the username is against policy}} in the block summary. It should have the same effect as leaving it on a talkpage without adding unnecessary cleanup work. WjBscribe 18:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel it's wrong to block someone and not leave a reason...even if they get a notice when they edit. Does it give them a generic notice or the username one. Besides, the instructions say to leave the message. A lot of username violators simply won't have a clue about how wiki works or what to do. I use {{subst:Uw-ublock|reason}}. If you got blocked wouldn't you want to know why?Rlevse 19:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

They get the exact message you use in your block summary - so if your block reason is {{UsernameBlocked|reason why the username is against policy}}, they get the full message when they try to edit. It does exactly the same thing as a talkpage message - and even has additional information about challenging blocks, the unblock mailing list etc. WjBscribe 20:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I never knew that. Is this posted somewhere on wikipedia? Rlevse 21:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite right WJBscribe. The parser functions don't work in the mediawiki space. The template is copied directly into the mediawiki space, and can be found at MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown/Templates/usernameblock. You need to put the message on the talk page explaining why it is unacceptable, as we should with just about every block we make. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

When you make a block there is an additional field for an additional block reason which can be used to add a bit more explanation. The user will see the usernameblock message, the additional message below it, and the additional instructions that every blocked user gets. There are two advantages of leaving a talk page message. 1) it is easy for other RC patrollers to see that the user is blocked. 2) The user gets a orange 'new message' bar (even before they try editing) which includes a direct link to their talk page where they can discuss the block. I have noticed that it can be very helpful for good faith newbies to visit the talk page and clarify the block or the username policy. Of course, sometimes with bad faith users you don't want a discussion, so there's not much point leaving the message. I would say that the default should be to leave a talk page message because it's helpful, but there are times when it isn't necessary. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I confess I don't leave blocking messages on usernames like "shittwatfuck" etc. because they know why. I do try to leave them on other such violations but I have forgotten/not done it on occasion, I have a feeling im the "blocking admin" this thread refers too.... eeep! SGGH ^speak! 22:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that, in cases where there's any doubt as to intent whatsoever (ie, if it's not like "shittwatfuck" etc), it's far more polite to leave a message because it's much more polite for a person to be told that they're blocked than to find out when they try to edit. A lot of these people are essentially being blocked procedurally to keep wikipedia a pleasant place, and not because they did something inherently bad (like vandalism or personal attacks). SamBC(talk) 11:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting Twinkle updated

Assuming my bold change to the header sticks (requesting that reports include an indication as to which of the "big 5" reasons—confusing, misleading, disruptive, promotional and offensive—is believed to apply to the name), it would seem necessary (in order to keep things smooth) that Twinkle be updated to include this. I have no idea how this would be done or who to contact - does anyone else? SamBC(talk) 01:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Contact WT:TW or User:AzaToth, this seems like a reasonably good idea. GDonato (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle doesn't look like it will fix this anytime soon. I think that in the meantime, we need to point out that such reports are invalid (or just remove them), lest others try to follow their bad example. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Melissa Suffield

See User talk:Melissa Suffield, she vandalised the article, rm'd her name that was submitted here, and claimed she is the real person. What's the process to prove you're the real person in question (though it's rec you not use your real name)?Rlevse 17:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Refactored

I've refactored the UAA page and its templates because they suffered from policy creep. The lists were preceded by a screenful of warnings that no one read anyway. I've tried to replace them with some simple instructions that reflect the current understanding of how to use UAA. Really, no amount of warnings can substitute for UAA users reading the username policy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you link to the concensus of this just so people can read it without searching? SGGH ^speak! 07:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I can link to WP:BOLD, and to WP:CREEP which says that "Page instructions should be pruned regularly." The consensus happens now, when (hopefully) nobody chooses to revert back to the creepy screenful of rules and warnings. I see no reason to be overly cautious with the text on UAA, because UAA itself isn't a policy, it's just a set of instructions for applying one part of the username policy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree it needed doing, even though I was the last person to add extra instructions. I'm not entirely comfortable with the exact change, though, although I can't put my finger on the exact issues. I suggest that we think about exactly which instructions are needed, which ones experience says need to be spelled out, and which ones can be summarised to the extent that you tried. I think some of them ended up over-simplified. We should try not to forget that the instructions kept growing because they were being ignored, and my impression over the last little while is that the behaviour of users reporting to UAA has improved somewhat. SamBC(talk) 08:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sam, you've proposed that more instructions will fix everything over at WP:U too, and I strongly disagree. The instructions are ignored because they keep growing. You can't make people read instructions by adding more of them. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I do actually agree generally, although when the growth is for clarity of existing instructions that's a different matter. Short instructions that everyone misunderstands or fails to understand are worse than taking a bit more space and prose to explain. In this specific case, my distinct impression from the time I spend on UAA and RFCN is that the changes in instructions have actually reduced inappropriate reporting. There is, however, too much verbosity in the header, as I already agreed. It needs distilling, I just suggest that if we're going to distill it to improve reception but keep the benefit of all the guidance, we need to spend some time and discussion working out what needs to stay and what can go, and what can be trimmed to a single sentence and what needs a bit more verbiage. SamBC(talk) 11:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that we need to spend even more time and discussion on this issue before making even a single change to some text that isn't policy. Instead of arguing for a wholesale revert, why don't you point out what needs to be changed or added in my compressed version? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, okay, I'll go back to your version and make the changes I think it needs, but my point was that, generally, when trying to do something that takes a reasonable amount of thought and discernment, talking first helps, because it allows people to share thoughts at every stage of the process, identifying why the change is being made, what the change needs to acheive, what the resultant text needs to acheive, and so on. It's a basic point of group working, that is much more effective than one person doing something and everyone else saying what they thing is wrong with it, or could be improved. Sometimes the latter works better, but in my experience I think this case isn't one of them. Of course, if the participants won't collaborate in that way, then it won't work.

On a more personal note, your tone is getting a bit confrontational. I don't know if this is because you feel I've been confrontational or something, but if it is, I apologise, and let me assure you that that was not my intent. SamBC(talk) 17:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I liked rspeer's shortened version much better than the one that is there now. Instruction creep is an inevitable process, resulting from people making well-meaning additions to the instructions in order to help out, but the result is a huge mess like the one we have now, scrolling more than one page in a standard browser, with layers and layers of rules and instructions added on top of each other. Rspeer's version said everything that had to be said in a clear and concise way, without all the notes and bullet points and confusing lists. To be honest, I think that anyone who doesn't know username policy by heart is probably left with even more questions after reading the huge header that's there currently. Is he back? 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the refactored version is a lot better. When I initially created the page, the header was just about the same as the refactored version is now and it says everything that has to be said. If the headers too long, people won't read it. Short, sharp and to the point works better. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've restored rspeer's version with a couple of additions to satisfy my concerns. The specific note regarding the examples in WP:U is, I believe, necessary and helpful, as users believing that simply fitting an example makes the name a violation is an ongoing problem, and one extra point is worth it for that. I tried to think how to fit that into the preceding point, but it ended up really clunky. Also added mentions of discussing to the RFCN stuff, as it's still a common mistake that you can report to RFCN as soon as you've placed a relevant template on the user's talk page. Giving instruction a chance to work on remedying this seems reasonable, as the clearer instruction on it was quite new. Rspeer's wording would seem to potentially encourage people to just tag and report to RFCN without any chance for discussion with the user. SamBC(talk) 23:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You're additions look fine to me and certainly help clarify things. I strongly believe this is better than the mass of text we had before. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No-edit listings: a perpetual source of troll food

When we get names like "Your mom..should be mother of the year! What a mother she is...", it's pretty clear what's happening. People have figured out that they can create names that either trigger a bot, or get the attention of those people who go fishing for bad usernames on the new user log, and instantly get attention from the WP:UAA crowd by doing so. We are being quite successfully trolled. The bot helps the trolling run like clockwork -- they get a reaction every time.

Putting every user that refers to "pee" or "your mom" or "Jesus" on this page is a big waste of time, especially since most of them never even make any edits. The username policy encourages waiting for an edit, and I'd say this is another reason to do so.

We could spend our time on users who are actually disrupting something, instead of wasting time on those users who like to get our attention by screwing around on the Create an Account page, trying to preemptively block people who might be disruptive, and accidentally blocking legitimate newbies in the process.

I really don't see a reason to put names here before the users edit. I see such preemptive listings as leading to three situations, none of them helpful:

• The user is username trolling. They never planned to edit. If we block them, they don't care. They already got their stupid message onto this page and got lots of people to look at it.
• The user intends to vandalize. Their vandalism will be very easy to spot, because it will be under a crappy username. If we block them, they either create a more subtle name and vandalize anyway, or they catch on and promote themselves to Username Troll (see above).
• The user is a good-faith newbie. If we block them, they feel distinctly unwelcome. They probably do not create a new account; instead, they go on to some other Web site and occasionally mention to their friends how intolerant and prudish Wikipedia is.

Something I propose to do is to add WAIT_TILL_EDIT to all the rules on HBCNameWatcherBot. It is, after all, what the username policy says. Are there any reasonable objections to this? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how about any comments whatsoever? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable; You keep the stopgap in place with the helper bot, but don't spin your wheels needlessly on names that are never going to edit. Into The Fray ^T/C 05:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think it is a good idea to reduce our observation because of some troll. Gee, they stopped reporting these names till they edit, I know, I will make a real nasty one and make some edits! No, this is only giving a new avenue of attack to the trolls. Instead we can block, revert, ignore like we always do. but we should not change how things work because of what they do. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 02:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stop-Go here. Delaying all reports until the users edit creates an incentive for trolls to actually edit the encyclopedia, causing the offensive names to show up in edit histories, instead of just getting reported here and blocked. Is he back? 09:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your major change to the blacklist because a change that major requires a slightly larger consensus than what is shown right now. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 02:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia will always be attacked in one way or another. I don't describe to the belief that UAA should "prevent vandalism before it happens". Especially if the point of the vandalism is to get a stupid name seen by people, in which case we allow them to succeed much more spectacularly than if an RC patroller or two saw their vandalism and RBI'd them.

And my proposal isn't just due to recent trolling; I pointed out shortly after I showed up on WT:UAA that it doesn't make sense to report so many no-edit accounts, when the policy says that this should be an exceptional case. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these are trolling usernames. But these absolutely should be blocked right away. Why wait until we have to clean up some nasty vandalism? -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 02:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Rspeer, I know you don't subscribe to the belief that UAA should "prevent vandalism before it happens", but the policy that consensus has arrived upon says to block these names on sight. Our actions at UAA should reflect the consensus at WP:U. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, even if it were decided to not block certain trolls, you can just remove the names instead of delaying the reports of everything, the bot will not report twice. There are still the other inappropriate names that need to be caught before they end up in the history of some article. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, these users are morons who are trying to get kicks. I'd sooner they got their kicks by creating usernames that get blocked promptly than them having to resort to actual vandalism n order to get their kicks (and their blocks). Note, I'm not saying that having a bad username means that that account will be used to vandalise, I'm just directly refuting the argument that we're feeding trolls and that's bad. We're keeping the trolls tame, in a sense. SamBC(talk) 03:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, better they fly over here to the honeypot than infest the articles. Here they only effect people who choose to deal with them. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

While I support WAIT_TILL_EDIT for questionable strings/regexes that produce slightly higher numbers of false positives (e.g. "troll"), we shouldn't let the usernames spill into histories. Sure, some trolls may enjoy populating this page, but it's better than that they populate article histories with vandalism, and it leaves less to fix. It reduces one step in the RBI flow, and only admins who don't mind policing this, or users who add entries, will have to see the idiocies involved. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No-edit reports

I'm trying to add a reminder about no-edit reports to the UAA instructions, but it keeps getting removed, and frankly I don't understand why. My addition:

"Before reporting, please make sure the user has begun editing, with the exception of blatantly obscene or inflammatory usernames. Unused usernames do not harm the encyclopedia."

WP:U clearly states that unused usernames do not need to be reported, and the current instructions fail to mention this, so what exactly is the problem? --Bongwarrior 06:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, have you contacted the user who is removing it? Or is it more than one? SGGH ^speak! 13:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:U states that there's no need to report (anywhere) names that haven't edited, unless they are blatant violations - that means any of the 5 reasons, not just obscene or inflammatory. Blatantly promotional names are just as valid. Further, no name should be reported to UAA unless it's a blatant violation and needs blocking, and as long as that's the case the fact of an editor having edited or not is irrelevant, by policy. To quote, "Unless a username is a blatant infringement of username policy, do not report it unless the user has begun editing." Thus, specifying only two types of infringement is a misrepresentation of policy, and saying don't report names without edits unless they're blatant is completely unnecessary, because nothing should be reported here unless it's a blatant violation. I think I just explained it twice in slightly different terms... is it any clearer? SamBC(talk) 18:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not really. You seem to be saying, "Policy says not to report no-edit usernames unless it's a blatant infraction. But since we are only supposed to report blatant username infractions anyway, don't bother waiting for edits." As I said in my edit summary, blatantly obscene or inflammatory names are generally the only ones that would possibly require a preemptive block. Promotional names absolutely do not need to be reported prior to editing, because it's usually impossible to tell if a username is promotional or not until it edits. --Bongwarrior 19:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, blatant means clarity, not severity. No need to wait for an edit to report here if it is a clear violation. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yes, any clear violation of the username policy allows for a block before editing. Promotion, confusing, the whole gamut. It is only when it is not clear that you need to seek greater discussion first. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, but it seems most users have wildly varying opinions on what constitutes a "clear" violation. It's not the end of the world if we wait for User:Bobo6574839292902984387475485 to start editing, but I wouldn't want to wait with a username like User:Kill all the jews or something similar. --Bongwarrior 19:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your arguments, Bongwarrior, and agree with them to some extent. However, they are not in line with policy, and this page exists purely to serve the policy. If you want to change the way it works in ways that go beyond current policy, then try to get the policy changed. SamBC(talk) 20:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My main point is that a reminder to wait until the username in question starts editing is sorely needed in the UAA instructions. Does anyone disagree? If the part about possible exceptions needs to be removed, I have no problem with that. --Bongwarrior 20:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, waiting for edits is explicitly not required for blatant violations. UAA is only for reporting blatant violations. Thus, no name brought to UAA correctly should require waiting for an edit. The warning in question should be at WP:RFCN, and I think that it is. If there's a problem that non-blatant names are reported here without an edit, then the "without an edit" part isn't the problem. The problem is the "non-blatant" part. SamBC(talk) 20:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You're forgetting what RFCN is for. The warning should be a {{uw-username}} warning on the user's talk page, and you only take it to RFCN if the user disagrees. But your idea of UAA is too idealized, because you assume that every username can be neatly classified as "blatant" or "not blatant". There will always be edge cases where it makes sense to wait for the user to edit, and swing the decision based on the user's edits. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, if there's any doubt at all, then it's non-blatant, by definition. It might be nearly blatant, but everyone's life would be much easier, including the new users who get blocked, if people only reported things to UAA that were really blatant. Oh, and I didn't mean to minimise the important of discussion before going to RFCN - but people shouldn't be reporting here because they can't be bothered to discuss with the user. If it's only suitable for RFCN (and then only after discussion), then if you can't be bothered to discuss, just leave it. Rspeer, if you've been paying attention, you know I'm one of the people who pushes for discussion with the user before handling at RFCN. But it was appropriate to clarify for others benefit. SamBC(talk) 21:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So where do we stand on this? Can I re-add my original instructions or something similar, or is it just going to be reverted again? I understand Sam's point that ideally non-blatant usernames shouldn't be reported here at all, somewhat negating the necessity of a "wait till edit" reminder. The reality isn't that simple however; non-blatant, no-edit usernames are reported, and a simple reminder of username policy would help cut down on those reports. --Bongwarrior 18:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Letter vs. spirit in "blatantly inappropriate" usernames

Since so much hinges on what is a "blatantly inappropriate" username and what isn't, I'd like to explicitly discuss it.

I believe there are some users on UAA who consider a username "blatantly inappropriate" if it clearly fits into one of the five categories of the username policy. Call this the "literal" interpretation.

The other interpretation is that whether a username is "blatantly inappropriate" has very little to do with what's in the policy. The policy tells you what's inappropriate, but if it's blatantly inappropriate then you don't need a policy to tell you so. That's what "blatant" means: you know it when you see it. Call this the "spiritual" interpretation.

I believe that an increasing number of people here are following the "spiritual" interpretation, but many decisions are still made based on the "literal" one. This could be because TWINKLE's interface and HBCNameWatcherBot follow the literal interpretation. (TWINKLE is literalist because AzaToth is, and the bot isn't capable of anything else.) I follow the spiritual interpretation, as you've probably noticed. I object to the literal interpretation because it lets the letter of the policy trump common sense, even though common sense is required by the letter of the policy.

What are other people's opinions on this distinction? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate the distinction you draw. To my mind, it's really a combination of both. For example, literal interpretations could end up saying that any username that could be seen as disruptive isn't allowed. This would block a whole load of perfectly reasonable usernames. This is, of course, one of the problems with people taking the examples as criteria, which Twinkle still encourages. Maybe someone should try to speak to AzaToth directly about that.

In an ideal world, with a perfect policy, the two interpretations would, of course, be the same. Much like an ideal gas or ideal vacuum, however, that's not going to happen. Perhaps it would be helpful if policy made that clear; there's always a level of human judgement, and a username that happens to be a bit offensive to someone isn't a blatant violation. Perhaps we should swan over to WT:U and suggest something to define "blatant", like "it is highly doubtful that anyone would disagree, in good faith, with the assessment of the name as inappropriate by the given criterion". The system that we now work with would seem to imply this meaning of blatant - if discussion would not be necessary (with the user in question or others), UAA, if it would be, discuss with the user first and then RFCN. It may also help prevent reports that are clearly inspired by a feeling of "I find it offensive" or "I find it disruptive". SamBC(talk) 15:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it refers to the level of doubt you make have. I don't really see the distinction you are making, I can't really use the force when making these decisions. If this "common" sense you refer to was truly common, you would not have to explain it. Can you give an example of where this distinction has had an effect so as to better understand this spiritual judgement that you would prefer? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I also have to disagree with Sam about the "highly doubtful that anyone would disagree" thing, someone will always disagree with good decisions. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I meant "highly doubtful" in the same way that I've heard it used about CSD... as in, not literally, but we know what we mean. Which really isn't very clear, but it saves explaining it by way of a 20,000 word monograph. Put it another way, there is some evidence that "blatant" needs explaining (witness some of the reports here). How would you suggest concisely defining it, especially as dictionary definitions probably indicate context as affecting meaning? SamBC(talk) 16:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"If you do not doubt it is a violation..." seems to sum it up nicely. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Asking people to consider what others may think prompts them to remember that they are not likely to be reacting objectively in the first instance. I don't doubt that most people reporting names here don't doubt that they are violations, but they should doubt that they are. Using language that suggests consideration of other views generally, in my wider experience, produces more objective responses. SamBC(talk) 16:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It is no big deal to reject a name if people are wrong. If someone repeatedly reports names "they have no doubt are violations", which are not, then we educate them. But if people can't determine if a name is acceptable or not, then what makes you think they will get a better answer by trying to know the minds of others? I would say when someone reports a name they are not in doubt about that this means they don't think people will disagree with them. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, from my experience, you can ask people "are you certain about that" and they'll say "yes", and then you ask "and do you think people will agree with you", or more generally "what will other people think" and they often change their tune, or admit that it may well be contraversial. What about "a username may be considered a blatant violation if you do not doubt that any reasonable editor familiar with this policy would disagree"? SamBC(talk) 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sam and Until, you have both missed the distinction. This may be because you both take the literal view, and it's just that Until wants to apply it in a way that blocks more people and Sam in a way that blocks fewer. This would explain why I've disagreed with Sam even though we both think UAA blocks too many people.

The "by the spirit" view is this:

Violating the username policy is just that, a violation of policy. Like most other violations of policy, we respond with a warning on their user page.

Some usernames are blatantly inappropriate. There's no point in leaving a warning and waiting for a response, because there's no conceivable thing we'd want to do with that username except block it. Such usernames might include racist slurs, attacks on other Wikipedians, impersonation, et cetera. Assuming there is not a glaring hole in the username policy, all blatantly inappropriate usernames should also be violations of policy. There is no list of what makes a username blatantly inappropriate, because you're supposed to use common sense.

There is a well-defined class of violations that are not blatant. This doesn't mean you're unsure whether it's a violation, it means that you know it's a violation but you also know that a block isn't the appropriate response. A classic example would be Gggggggggggggg12. The name is confusing; even I often forget the number of g's to type (15) when referring to this incident. But the two admins who blocked him drove away a good faith contributor. They might not have done this if they had the concept of a non-blatant violation. Basically, every time I remove a name from UAA and then warn someone, it's because it's in this class.

Determining whether others would agree if something is a violation, as you're discussing above, is a tangential issue. The distinction I'm trying to make is whether you block someone because their name is a violation, or you block someone because their name needs to be blocked. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see where the divergence is. Until and I understand "blatant" to mean "clear", or "obvious", while you understand it to mean "egregious", more or less. How about we take this discussion over to WT:U and discuss incorporating both terms into policy, and get consensus as to which one means that a name should be blocked without discussion - I would support a statement that only egregious violations should be blocked without discussion. However, remember that inadvertent violations may still be considered egregious - "Waterstones" would definitely need a block, discussion or not, so why discuss first? However, because it could readily be inadvertent, care should be taken with the message to the user. Anyway, if I'm right, then this discussion should be at WT:U. SamBC(talk) 18:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As to the final point/summary you make, if the policy is written correctly, than no name will be a violation and not need blocking, albeit in some cases following a discussion to make sure that there isn't a misunderstanding. Part of the problem is that so many people seem to misunderstand the policy and think that any name matching an example is a violation, however much we try to make it clear that this isn't the case. I assume this is because users who've been "username patrolling" since before the clarification haven't noticed. SamBC(talk) 18:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that common sense should prevail. Let's look at what really is happening. If someone creates User:Fartfartfartfartfart, what is the real motive? To test WP:UAA to see if their name will stick? There's blatant and then there's subjective (rather than spiritual). Someone has to make a judgment call, rather than having an objective policy that forces rigid criteria. Judging on the communal aspect of Wikipedia, I think that a subjective, evaluative approach works best.—Twigboy 18:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Spiritual" is probably the wrong word, indeed. I started out talking about "by the letter" or "by the spirit", and then "literal" and "spiritual" became shorthand for that, but the overtones are weird. We could use Sam's distinction of "blatant = clear" versus "blatant = egregious". And yes, let's take it to WT:U soon, but I'm glad I mentioned it here first to clarify what distinction I'm trying to make. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)Sam, I also understand it to mean "obvious" rather than "egregious", and I think it's good you're making this distinction. What's the point of having examples- or even 5 overarching principles- if we're going to say "well yes, the username obviously fits that description but I judge it to not be offensive/egregious/whatever". I thought the disagreement around "blatant" had more to do with "Am I sure I'm interpreting the meaning of this username correctly? Does 'porn' mean pornography or a surname?" etc., than "I don't think it's bad enough to need a block." Don't want to beat a dead horse as this is well-trodden territory, but usernames should be blocked for purely practical reasons: their likelihood to cause disruption on Wikipedia. I don't know if this counts as a "literal" or "spirit" interpretation of the policy, but it means that certain usernames, for example the oft-dreaded "pee" ones that clearly refer to urine, should be blocked on sight. To interpret blatant as "egregious", which I think is incorrect but a viable alternative, means we're going to have to reword WP:U. ~Eliz81^(C) 18:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should reword to avoid this misunderstanding. However, I'm not saying that we should one-for-one replace blatant with egregious - we should seperate the concepts, IMO. But that discussion belongs at WT:U. SamBC(talk) 19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, discussion opened at WT:U. ~Eliz81^(C) 19:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Shut up

Is shut up a violation of the username policy? I'm not too sure if this is the right place to ask though. --Hirohisat ^紅葉 05:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say it meets the criteria: "Offensive usernames are likely to make harmonious editing difficult or impossible." ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree SGGH ^speak! 15:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A non-blatant violation, yes. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the above notwithstanding, it would depend on if that was the user name, or if the words were incorporated. For instance, would "I should shut up" be a violation? Granted, it would seem a silly username, but I'm not really sure it would be blocked due to username violation. Or, "My dog needs to shut up"? If there is a specific name you're referring to, it would give a better idea of context, but I imagine just the name "Shut up" would, by itself, be a borderline name, mainly because, as Until mentioned, it could make harmony difficult. Ariel♥Gold 18:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I assumed that we were talking about someone called simply User:Shut up. That name would create disharmony every time the user reverted something, for example. That makes the name a violation, so I'd leave a {{uw-username}} and take it to RFCN if the user kept editing with it, but I would not block it as a "blatant violation". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In light of ArielGold's eloquent distinction, I should revise my above statement to say only if it is "likely to make harmonious editing difficult or impossible." ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins

I was wondering if admins should report username vios instead of blocking on sight like with vandals. I am not an admin, I'm just curious. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 16:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the question. Are you asking whether admins should block usernames that have never appeared on UAA?

I have no problem with admins placing such blocks (assuming the username really should be blocked, of course). The point of UAA is to bring names to admins' attention. If an admin is the first to notice a blatantly inappropriate username, then it already has an admin's attention. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks! J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 01:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

HBC AIV helperbot3

This bot automatically removes a name from this list if it's been blocked. It should probably only do so if the user has been indef blocked. Otherwise it will automatically remove a user blocked for abuse who also has a questionable user name. Rklawton 18:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is beyond the bot's current ability, it is designed for AIV and serves this page as an afterthought. 1 != 2 18:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone temp-blocked a user name that means an admin saw the username and decided that it wasn't appropriate to block it indef. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In the most current example, it does not. Rklawton 19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any example linked so I'm not sure what case your referring too. In any case, whoever it was made a call not to block indef. We don't employ robots here, as far as I know. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a similar request a few months ago at User:HBC AIV helperbot/Feature requests. Nothing ever came of it as far as I know. --Bongwarrior 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot reports on long names

Mangojuice has disabled the reporting of long names to this page by the bot[9]. Is this in line with consensus? I for one would like to continue seeing such reports, most of the long names the bot reports end up blocked, and the previous value was decided by consensus. 1 != 2 14:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with turning it off. If we want a limit on username length, we should put it in software, not bite them after the fact. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing about turning it off in software is that not all such long names are confusing. Long names should only be disallowed if they are confusing. And they should only be blocked on sight if they are clearly confusing. So a software block would not work. What we need is a system whereby humans can have their attention brought to a name and make a decision. That is what we have.

If you don't think they should be blocked at all then you should change the policy, but starting by stopping such names from being reported is kind of a back door approach to change. The bot doesn't bite anyone, it reports a name here. 1 != 2 15:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If I believed that admins used common sense in blocking, I'd be okay with the bot. That doesn't happen. People block users with long foreign usernames "because the bot said so". Meanwhile, names that need to be blocked can still be blocked without a bot. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide an example of a legitimate username blocked by an admin declaring "because the bot said so"? PeaceNT 08:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think admins should have discretion in the area of username blocks, once again try to change the policy. You show me an admin who blocks name because the bot told them to and I will personally educate the person. But stopping the bot from reporting such names because you don't think admins know better is frankly the wrong way to bring about change. The fact is the policy thinks admins can make this decision, and I also do not see many such decisions being reversed by the community. 1 != 2 15:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My heart is with Rspeer here, but my head with Until. If admins are blocking "because the bot said so" then the problem is with the admins, not with UAA or the policy. SamBC(talk) 16:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I never understood that example. Can someone explain why a long username is supposed to be confusing? Or harmful in any other way? My understanding of it is that really long usernames are aggravating in page histories. We should probably just get rid of that example, and if long usernames are problematic, we should add a restriction to MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist. But regardless of whether policy should change, I'd rather see these usernames just handled manually, so that we at least know the name looked bad to some human before it gets reported here. Mangojuice^talk 16:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That example is much more beholden to the "not all names meeting this example are actually violations" bit. Long names are somewhat more likely to be confusing, therefore it is arguable that they should be scrutinized. If there's a problem with dumbass admins blocking everything the bot reports (and I think we've all seen that happen occaisionally), that's a problem with dumbass admins. And everyone's a dumbass sometimes. SamBC(talk) 16:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mangojuice and Rspeer. I think it is safe to say that we disagree. I will wait to see what other opinions develop. 1 != 2 16:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, I've noticed that many of the "long username" reports are actually bad usernames which happen to bypass the bot's other flags. The "my teacher" ones, for example, are blatantly inappropriate but aren't otherwise caught. Nihiltres^(t.l) 17:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The previous setting of the long name feature was 40 and was reached by consensus, I have set it back to that until a consensus to change it is reached. 1 != 2 17:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, User:Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka just got indefinitely blocked. Just in case you thought UAA made any sense.. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that user turned out to be a vandal, like many new users. But I discourage coming to the conclusion "see, they were vandalizing, the username shows they were up to no good". Blocks for vandalism are already quite possible, so username blocks can remain limited to usernames that actually hurt Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That username is a random one. I tried googling various parts of it to see if it's a foreign name and came up with nothing. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's surprising, seeing as I just googled various likely-looking substrings from it and got proper names (personal ones) from most components. I haven't tried every likely component, either. SamBC(talk) 10:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Which part of it needed to be blocked without a warning? And since when does Google search for substrings of a name? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy lays down quite clearly that patently inappropriate usernames are to be blocked. Unlike vandals, bad username account can be blocked without warnings. By the way, the above mentioned username got indefinitely blocked not because a Google search gave nothing interesting, but rather because it is long and random, a clear case of violation to me. PeaceNT 08:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is shorter than some Wikipedians' names, and it takes only a small amount of understanding of the structure of language to see that that name is not at all random. There was no reason to block this name. (And I'm sorry for confusing the issue by looking at the wrong contributions page and thinking they had vandalized. Now there's even less of a reason.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do read my whole sentence. This username is not only long but also confusingly random. Names that are either long or random should be fine. arfgat is a fine username, for instance, but arrffffgggaaaaaaaa!!!!!ttt would be subject to a RFCN because it is lengthy (still shorter than Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka, though). Similarly, there is no problem with User:All your base are be long to us Internet song, but User:Quratawasaalamganakaaslata is someone whose username I'll definitely block as a random and meaningless sequence of letters. The fact that this account does not vandalize is not an excuse, for it was blocked purely due to username violation. PeaceNT 08:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

When you block for a username violation, it has to be "blatant". Now, there's some disagreement about whether this means "obvious" or "egregious", but this name is clearly neither. Nothing is harmed by letting an editor edit with the name "Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka". If you wanted to encourage the user to change their name, {{uw-username}} is the way to do it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the bot reporting long usernames. I agree that length isn't necessarily a problem per se, merely a flag for potential problems. I routinely turn down bot and user reported names that are long but not confusing.-- Flyguy649 ^talk 07:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There should be a limit on long names. Is 500 characters a reasonable limit? 50? This discussion is really about what that limit should be. I'm all for turning the limit back on.Rlevse 09:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with 40, as long as it's enforced entirely in software. No more blocking 28-character names for not being English enough. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Forced rename" for non-blatant usernames with edits

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names#Change name or else.... Cheers, Melsaran (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Role account

I noticed UNEG claims in an edit summary it edits on behalf of the United Nations Evaluation Group. Should it be reported as an immediate block Role account then? (I have to run now, so I can't do anyting timeconsuming ;-) or anything at all, sorry) Greswik 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What I'd recommend is, of course, slightly more time-consuming than an immediate block. I suggest talking to them, finding out what they hope to accomplish on Wikipedia, and helping them do this in a way that can be attributed to a single user. Since I rather doubt that the UN is vandalizing or spamming, an immediate block would be very silly. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This shows the intent, also matches a known organization. Rlevse 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you believe them, they were fixing an inaccuracy. That's hardly threatening. Again, just talk to them about role accounts, no block is necessary. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Can non-admins remove reports?

I've read "yes" in one thread on here and "no" in another. I encounter a lot of very borderline reports on here, and I usually just leave a comment and leave it for an admin to decide on. Should I be bold and start removing them myself, or just keep doing it the way I have been? I don't want to overstep myself. --Bongwarrior 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to leave them up, to avoid confusing new users who might take such actions to mean you are an administrator or presenting yourself as one. The exception would be with regard to clear bad faith reports, such as a vandal reporting the user who warned them. Leebo ^T/C 18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It was pretty firmly established here a while ago that anyone can remove them; removing things that blatantly shouldn't be might be actionable, whether you're an admin or not. I'm no admin, but I remove things regularly that are clearly misunderstandings of WP:U or WP:UAA, especially names that meet one of the detailed examples but not any of the 5 actual blocking reasons. SamBC(talk) 19:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if the account has already been blocked or the nomination is trolling then feel free to remove.... In other circumstances leave it to those who have the tools to deal with 'em. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with a borderline report, I think it is best to just leave a comment as you do. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 20:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Two points, on further thought:

1. Truly borderline usernames shouldn't be here, by definition. If the user is concerned about a borderline name, they should be talking to the user and going to WP:RFCN if that doesn't satisfy them (once they've tried to talk).
2. It's also a matter of confidence. If you feel confident enough to know that a name should be rejected, then that's fine. If you're uncomfortable doing this, then that's a good sign that you shouldn't. SamBC(talk) 20:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You can if you do it right, if you don't do it right, expect people to complain. They will also complain if you do it right, but it will be much less. 1 != 2 20:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I do remove reports on occasion, and I'm not an admin. But I only do so if either (a) it is a duplicate of a bot-reported username, or (b) my own report which I later decide I've made in error. I let the AIV HelperBot take care of it otherwise. Duplicate reports on the user-reported side I leave; the AIV HelperBot will consolidate them. WP:TW doesn't appear to check if the name's already reported, so I sometimes end up making duplicate reports. That's never my intent. --Tckma 14:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How much more crap can we have on the page?

Seriously. There's so much extra crap stuck at the top of the UAA page that I have to hit page down just to see anything. I'm trying to shrink down Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/header, but still, it seems like we're getting excessively crap-happy when it comes to sticking stuff there. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's mainly because people are excessively crap-happy when reporting usernames here :/ Seriously, despite all our attempts at reform, I block maybe 1 out of 8 reports that come up. When will the madness end? Is there some quota people are trying to reach - reporting 10 users to UAA a day - because some of the stuff that appears here doesn't cause even the slightest twitch of the eyebrow. Admittedly I've been using the Internet for some years now... ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 06:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

But returning to the original question Riana takes a deep breath could we perhaps hide it by default, or something? What can be pruned from the header? ~ Riana ⁂ 06:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hiding may not be a good idea, because some users need that information, and I think our bogus reports would go up threefold without that information being immediately apparent... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had a tinker with the header, and managed to reduce it in length by a further three lines ([10]) without losing any information. That should help a little. The only other option without removing instructions is to reduce the text size, which isn't ideal. Neil ☎ 12:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made further alterations to the page. Now the sysop instructions are hidden; I figured that most admins are aware of what to do, and if they aren't, then it is easy enough to open it. I have also made the text smaller, but it is still easily readable. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Good calls all around, folks (I especially like hiding the admin stuff; very sound logic on that). The page looks leaps better than it did when I first posted my pithy little complaint. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Give an actual reason

It would be really great if people would say why a username breaks policy rather than just giving an automated generic reason. This would enable us to see what the actual problem is. I understand that this might involve people not using automated scripts, but I'm sick of having to work out what's wrong with something.. Secretlondon 15:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, when the generic reason does not explain well enough and it is not apparent what the violation is, I usually just remove the name with a comment asking for more detail if they try again. 1 != 2 15:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

What? Are people still doing this? There should be a pointer in the orange header that I originally added saying something like "blatant violation is not a good enough report summary!" Do I have to stick flashing lights on it? Grrr SGGH ^speak! 14:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoever edited the header above removed it. I have readded it now, hopefully this will jog peoples memory :) SGGH ^speak! 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made one more edit. Although I put the text "obviously needs to be immediately blocked" there in the first place, I've now removed the word "obviously". Even though this weakens the instruction, I think that too many instances of "obvious" in the instructions may have led people to believe that saying "obvious violation", or leaving a generic TWINKLE message without a reason to block, was sufficient. Never mind that they'd only think this if they failed to read the rest of the page; we already know that many username reporters don't read directions very well. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

formatting fixes...

I made this edit to the page: [11]. This removes two empty lines at the top of the page. Will this break the bots that keep track of backlog here? I immediately reverted myself so we could talk about it before making the change. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as the {{noadminbacklog}} <!-- HBC AIV helperbot v... --> is all on the same line, it should work fine, even if there is other stuff on the line with it. It will be a little harder for humans to find stuff, but the bot will be fine. At least, the code says so, whether or not it will do something that I don't expect it to, I can't say :) —Krellis (Talk) 15:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have to correct myself, I just found a place where this does, in fact, break - the bot relies on {{noadminbacklog}} being at the start of the line. I can probably make some changes to fix that, but until that's done, the code does need to stay on its own line (stuff after the end of the settings comment is fine, though). —Krellis (Talk) 15:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Damn. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Due process

I'm just learning the ropes here, so please forgive me if I am overlooking something. I was taken aback when I wrote something here, and the reply consisted in deleting it. ([12] - but don't worry, I'm not complaining about that particular action; I'm happy that the request was declined.) What I'm concerned about is that severe decisions are made here - to immediately block users who may have had hundreds of good edits - without transparency or due process. — Sebastian 17:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll tell you that most administrators are very very reticent to block accounts with a significant number of good edits. One of the things that I always do before blocking is check contribs and deleted contribs on a user to see what their edit history is. If there are more than 2 or 3 (often vandalism or promotional) contribs, I think long and hard before pressing the button. I think most of us would absolutely encourage the user to change the username before a block unless the username is blatantly offensive or is being used for promotional purposes - and often even in those cases.

As to due process: like any other block, these users have the right to appeal using either the {{unblock}} template or through the unblock-l.

I hope that at least begins to answer some of your concerns... and I know others will weigh in here as well. - Philippe | Talk 17:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course! I don't doubt your circumspicion. SpikeJones (talk · contribs) is a good example in many ways, including the fact that it has not simply been blocked. I'm only concerned because I might be wielding the mop myself tomorrow, and I can easily imagine that a younger and more proactive admin could cause some pain to good users. I need to add, I came here somehow through Category:Administrative backlog. (Maybe indirectly. It's not in that category now. How is the backlog situation?) So I really don't want to complicate matters unnecessarily. — Sebastian 18:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Second thought about "good user": I'm not happy that a user who professes to have no particular interest in a certain notable person[13] assumes the name of that person. Maybe experiencing a bit of pain would be only fair. Somehow though I feel there should be something in between. This 1:x chance of a punishment that is x times as hard as it should be may be fair on average, but it is not satisfactory. — Sebastian 19:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"*Bot" usernames

What is normally done for if a username ending in "Bot" is created, submitted for bot approval, and then either withdrawn (this is the case for a user currently on this page) or fails? It does not appear the user intends to attempt any automated editing without approval. —Random832 16:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine nothing happens, it isn't doing anything wrong just sitting there, aside from taking up a couple of kilobytes... --SGGH ^speak! 18:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so long as the user doesn't try to use the account there isn't anything that needs to be done. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Brain Trauma Foundation and other group names

There's really no reason to block accounts named things like "Brain Trauma Foundation" unless they're actively promoting themselves. It's possible to talk to people and explain why role accounts are frowned upon. Give them the chance to work something out where a single named user contributes to Wikipedia for them. If groups are responsible about their potential conflict of interest, we should welcome their interest in Wikipedia, not block them.

The revised username policy says something about this issue: WP:U#Company/group names. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And apparently no one's paying attention, and User:Bravogolfhotel got blocked for sounding like a group name to people who don't know the phonetic alphabet. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I did block User:Brain Trauma Foundation because they were actively promoting themselves. I have been working with the user, though, and have since assisted them in a change username as well as how to properly contribute to Wikipedia without violating policies and guidelines. He's actually a very friendly guy and quite eager to learn! Anyway, just thought I should mention that when I saw this thread. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, second on the User:Bravogolfhotel block not making a whole lot of sense (at least on the surface). Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a Bravo Golf Hotel [14] and it is a commercial enterprise. Bielle (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the user's contributions, though, the two seem likely to be unrelated. It doesn't look like the user has ever edited anything even remotely close to the subject of golf or anything to do with hotels. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the block has to do with the name being an advertisement in and of itself and intentional or not. Editing in the area would just be an additional reason to block. I can't name myself User: Museum of Modern Art, for example, even if I never edit anyting about either museums or modern art. Bielle (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a bizarre definition of "advertisement". I see no reason that the namespace of existing corporations and the namespace of Wikipedia users must be distinct, when they are bound to collide by accident, in cases such as this one. Even if you think it's highly important to maintain this distinction, making indefinite blocks without discussion is a completely out-of-proportion way to do it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that "Bravo Golf Hotel" is "BGH" in the NATO phonetic alphabet. Possibly BGH is the user's initials? I really think this is a bad block, blocking someone for having the name of an obscure little-known hotel when there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the username. Is he back? (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Company names do need blocking, if they're non generic, they spam the histories of articles every time they edit. We also don't know if it really is someone from the company, it could be someone spoofing the company in order to cast them in a negative light. Remember, this is soley based on a username violation, what rspeer discusses is editorial misconduct, because the user is promoting their company. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Two explanations have been proposed for why someone would choose the user name "Bravogolfhotel":

1. This represents the letters B G H in the NATO phonetic alphabet, which is widely known internationally. This could very well be the user's initials. The same as if e.g. Ryan Postlethwaite chose the name "Romeopapa" because "RP" was already taken.
2. They are trying to spam edit histories on Wikipedia with advertising for a hotel in the Philippines most people have never heard about.

Now Wikipedia has a policy called Assume good faith. Looking at the user's contributions, they are all of a helpful nature. Mostly wikignome work, but that's what many people start with before going on to make more productive contributions. There is nothing that indicates the user has even heard of the hotel in the Philippines. Also, everyone who has been in the Army, or worked in an occupation that makes use of radio communications, will recognise this as "BGH" in the phonetic alphabet and not the name of a hotel. So why shouldn't we assume that explanation 1 is right when there is no evidence to the contrary?

Also, even if we have to disallow this username, it was handled in the worst possible way: the user was indef blocked, with no attempt being made to discuss with them, and with no more explanation than "[your] username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long or confusing, be too similar to an existing user, contain the name of an organization or website, refer to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace, or be otherwise inappropriate". I thought non-blatant violations were to be discussed with the user first. If someone had actually taken the time to talk to them and say "hey, your username matches the name of a small hotel somewhere in the Philippines, and such names are forbidden on Wikipedia, would you mind choosing a new name?", there is a fair chance that Bravogolfhotel would have requested a rename and gone on with his helpful contributions. Instead, we have now probably lost a potentially constructive contributor, who will go on and tell all his friends how difficult it is to contribute to Wikipedia. But newbies are expendable, right? Is he back? (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that Bravogolfhotel is way to generic to be considered blockable, I don't even we think to AGF with it, it should be allowed. I'm not entirely sure AGF applies here in many promotional usernames - if it clearly is promotional in nature, regardless of editing quality, it should be blocked - we just don't need spam in histories, but discussion with the user is obviously the first step, followed by RFCN dicussion if they have shown to have good edits. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Username review

We need a place to review blocks of usernames. Not that unblocking them after the fact will help at all, but we at least need to be able to establish that some username blocks are inappropriate. Then admins can have some examples to go on, so they try not to do the same thing in the future.

If such a list existed, I would put User:Bravogolfhotel and User:UnDeAdOvErLoRd2 on it, among many others.

The best way to do this, in my view, would be for the bots to work differently; they would keep a section of the page as a log, showing a list of recently blocked or removed names, along with the block reasons or edit summary, and this log could be commented on by others. (The comments are why the "history" tab is insufficient.)

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention/Review that I just created? Will it work? JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:adminname then WP:ANI for block reviews, same process here unless consensus is there is a reason to change this. 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDonato (talk • contribs)

If there's a problem with an admins block, the appropriate venue for discussion of it is WP:AN/I - not some extension of this alert board. Simply put, it would never have a wide enough audience to get a thorough evaluation, and probably couldn't generate an acceptable consensus to lead to an unblock without the admins consent. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I do currently bother the admins who I think make inappropriate blocks; it's not much fun, and they don't take it very well. Dragging it onto AN/I would be incredibly worse. Unblocking is also a red herring, as the newbie is presumably not patiently waiting for days, they're going to some other website. The point is to establish some common standards about which blocks are appropriate, as right now there can be very different outcomes based on which admin gets there first. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe we could use your proposed board to do some evaluating - look at blocks which have been made, and blocks which haven't. It could answer some huge questions about consistancy and the way WP:U is interpreted. In the long run, we could probably use it to put concrete guidlines together as to when discussion with the user should be the preferred method over a block and vice versa. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just had to deal with loads of promotional accounts that have ended up on changing username (generally for capitalisation issues). These all used to be blocked here, now the crats are having to do them all. I suspect some people are removing valid reports - there were some really clear cut role accounts and spammers there. Secretlondon (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what you consider "removing valid reports". I've just removed two company names from the list, because they've been warned about username problems and they're not actively promoting themselves. Per WP:U, I blocked just the one that was actually promoting itself. I think it's a good thing that UAA is less in the business of blocking people for what they haven't done yet, as that's a tremendous source of false positives. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I also remove accounts not being actively used for promo purposes, and my notes on WP:CHU when a possible promo account comes up state the truth: If they start advertising, they'll get an enforced vacation. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Secretlondon's correct, we block usernames that match company names, they shouldn't be removed (unless it's too generic). 1)It's spam in histories, 2)We don't know if they are from the company, it could make the company look bad with the edits the accounts making, yet having nothing to do with the company. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't need a special review board, you can review admin actions at WP:AN or WP:ANI. Username blocks are often disputed but rarely found to be incorrect.

In regards to promotional names, you don't need to edit to promote if your name is itself promotion. The goal of all blocks are preventative and we don't want promotional names in our edit summaries. A soft block is of course the best choice allowing the user to continue here under a name that is acceptable. 1 != 2 19:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Template

I have created a new template {{user-uaa}} that automatically fills in the block reason and checkboxes:

• Example (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)

I would like to suggest it be used here instead of userlinks. Note that it still takes you to the blockip screen; you can click either and change the parameters if you want to make a block other than a username block. —Random832 20:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to go ahead and do it. —Random832 03:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem diff with the way HBC HelperBot is dealing with the new template. It treats user-uaa lines below an item it deletes as comments and deletes them as well. MKoltnow 17:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed template change

I'm proposing an additional category in the Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox. This page is already on the template, hence the notification. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out the conflict of interest noticeboard

There have been many reports recently of the form "there isn't actually anything wrong with this username, but they're editing with a conflict of interest and I want them blocked". Wikipedia has a place for this: it's WP:COIN, the Conflict Of Interest Noticeboard. We shouldn't usurp their job, especially since they have subtler ways to deal with things besides "block" or "don't block". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree, maybe a quick mention in the UAA header is in order? I'm tired of UAA being used as an easy way to get people blocked, and this is one way people have used it.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The COI noticeboard deals with people that are thought to have a COI with an article - editing misconduct. With regards to a username iteslf, if it's promotional, it can be blocked solely as a username violation - it's nothing to do with editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Promotion and COI aren't the same thing. Look at the report on "Dthomw" on the page right now. If editing under your name or an abbreviation is "promotional", I'm doomed and so are you. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah yeah, understood. The problem with those names however is that we can't be sure it is, or isn't, the person - and we don't want a random person appearing to edit as the notable person. I agree however that in these circumstances, we should make every effort to ascertain exactly who the person is. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So as someone fairly new to UAA what would be the proper course of action (report, uw-username, COIN) for a user XYZCorp who creates an article on XYZ Corp that is blatant advertising? Or what about user XYZCorp creating an article about John Doe who seems unrelated to XYZ Corp? (My current understanding of policy would be report first, warn second) -- pb30<talk> 02:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If User:XYZCorp creates XYZCorp then report it, it's (most probably) acting in a pormotional manner. If User:XYZCorp creates a completely unrelated article, have a chat to them first - talk to them about WP:CHU and if you can;t come up with an amicable comprimise, take it to WP:RFCN. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:U#Dealing_with_inappropriate_usernames should be fleshed out a bit more, similar to WP:RFCN. Give an explanation on what should be reported, warned, or brought to a noticeboard for each of the four categories. -- pb30<talk> 02:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle Reports

It seems that the separation of the examples from the reasons in the username policy, and their later excision, has not been reflected in the messages left here by Twinkle users. I have a feeling the both the reports and the interface for UAA reporting in Twinkle is causing a degree of mis-education of users about the username policy and the sorts of names that should be reported here. Now, a lot of the names being reported are appropriate for reporting here, but the explanations are, to be frank, slightly odd. Is it worth some sort of concerted effort to get Twinkle changed to require the user to actually enter a meaningful, tailored message. Perhaps only offering the barest range of generic reasons and requiring a more specific reason to be filled in by hand.

What do people think? SamBC(talk) 20:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I do everything Old School. I agree that there are a lot of really odd submissions to UAA. I like the idea of at least a minimum of accountability for submitters--particularly those who do so via scripts. When someone nominated Joan de arc1412 (talk · contribs · count) as a vio, they did so with the reason that it was the name of a living or recently deceased person. I put a uw-uaa note on the editor's page and was rebuffed by the editor. I think if we editors expect UAA submissions to be taken seriously, we need to be careful in what we nominate and clear and specific in our reasoning. This discussion keeps coming up in one form or another, but editors continue to list usernames here which are not clearly violations. MKoltnow 23:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I just get the feeling that we're not going to get a change in Twinkle without presenting a consensus, as every report I've had of the request being made has ended up with it being apparently ignored. SamBC(talk) 20:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am, of course, part of this consensus. And maybe we should leave a new note for AzaToth? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As a new user to UAA and an existing user of Twinkle I found it to be a bit confusing. The policy seems kind of vague and the reasons in Twinkle seem very specific, some of which aren't listed in WP:U. After I found the examples page things made a bit more sense on where Twinkle got the criteria from, but I understand the examples page is kind of controversial. I think the UAA section of Twinkle should be more closely matched to the policy, and/or the policy should be a bit more specific. -- pb30<talk> 20:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick history of some recent events on WP:U... once upon a time, there were 5 types of infringing username, and each was accompanied by a list of examples. Many users treated the examples as actual rules, including AzaToth (although the inclusion of those in Twinkle was before my time and there may be some details I'm not aware of). They got applied too strictly, as we still see from Twinkle users, so a comment was added to the policy to not treat them as rules. This made no difference.

In an attempt to make it clearer, they were put into a separate section, with more than one note not to treat them as rules, and that not every name that fit the examples was in violation. This made some difference, but really not a lot.

Then, the examples got seperated out, and a deliberate decision was made not to link them from policy, as it was not seen as a good idea to give them any appearance of being part of the policy. After all, they have just been causing problems.

Now, my own view on this is this: the real consensus of username policy doesn't actually allow for examples as clear as those. You can't make it clear, because it's quite subtle, and there's a large amount of "I know it when I see it" to the way it works. This isn't great for new users, but if we create false examples and clearer criteria that don't actually fit the consensus of when a name is unacceptable then we get bad reports and bad feeling. As we get now through Twinkle. (And don't get me wrong, I think Twinkle is pretty great, generally, just has bad bits on WP:UAA reporting.) SamBC(talk) 16:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Another option would be for TW to add the uw-username option. Maybe more users would simply warn users of borderline usernames if it was built into the tool. -- pb30<talk> 23:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked AzaToth to do that once. He brushed me off on the technicality that it wasn't in some "official" list of warnings. I added it to the list, and he never got back to me. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• My two cents on this matter is that only manual reports should come through here. Users should spot inappropriate usernames as they're editing, not go through the new user log looking for them. I remove many usernames from here that are in no-way inappropriate. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That would be nice, too. But last time I tried to argue against bot reports, people were rather attached to them; TWINKLE reports at least have some human thought going into them. But maybe the winds have changed. Anyway, I've left a note for AzaToth pointing out this discussion to him; let's see if he responds. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ryan, I can understand your point of view, but there are a couple of things you haven't commented on. Firstly, new users show up in recent changes, which is where I will notice most of the inappropriate usernames that I report to UAA. Most of the time this is due to the username mirroring a company name or online organisation, and a lot of the time these accounts will already have posted their advertising links between registration and being blocked as a result of UAA. TWINKLE speeds up the process by allowing speedier reporting, but I would agree that some users view the UAA options as an alternative to reading and inwardly digesting WP:U – although this is perhaps due to their own ignorance than the involvement of a script. A similar argument could be made about over-hasty reversions of material that could easily be quickly cleaned up, wikified or sourced, as a result of the reversion facility in scripts such as TWINKLE and POPUPS. haz (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (sorry in advance, don't know where to thread this) I disagree with the objection to using the user creation log as a source of usernames to submit to UAA. I read through the log, primarily looking to see which accounts have contributions. Alas, many contributions from new accounts are vandalism, and the quickest way to stop the damage to the project is to discourage that behaviour quickly. As I'm reading through, I also see usernames which rouse my suspicion or in some cases are blatant block-on-sight violations. Sometimes I watch their talkpages to wait for contributions. But waiting for recent changes to point us to bad usernames defeats part of the purpose of UAA. If we don't want profane usernames showing up in edit histories, then they need to be discovered before they edit. MKoltnow 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked in WP:U, but noticed that disruptive usernames isn't listed, is it that you are allowed to have dissruptive usernames nowadays? _→AzaToth 15:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a question about the username policy, it would be appropriate to ask them on the relevant talk page. SamBC(talk) 17:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's what "offensive usernames" is meant to cover, judging from the explanation next to it, though perhaps "disruptive" would be a more accurate word. When it comes to TWINKLE, though, please just get it to line up with the username policy first. Discussing changes to the policy is a separate issue. I'll bring this to WT:U. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

inactive accounts?

Is there some way to get people to stop combing through the usercreation log or special:listusers to look for minor infractions of WP:U that haven't even edited in months/years?--172.167.228.130 (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure - ignore it. If it's an account that hasn't edited in two years and it's not incredibly inflammatory, I remove it without action. Much of the time, there's not even a talk page. I'm not going to create one, just to block the name that has never contributed. If enough reports get removed without action, folks will stop combing that. Obviously, it takes leaving a note for the reporting party, which (to be frank) I'm not always good at remembering to do, but... - Philippe | Talk 16:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't defunct usernames that are potentially offensive or exhibit minor infractions be MORE subject to blocking than say a user with minor transgression making great editorial contributions? Wisdom89 (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh No!

The copy paste template is gone! Save me!!!!!! --Pupster21 Talk To Me 12:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the copy paste template? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he means the hidden template that users can copy and paste so they know how to report. Ryan Postlethwaite ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(if I understood this right) You already armed yourself with vandalproof - I would suggest employing Twinkle (if you haven't already done so) if your feeling eager. Just be careful not to act too impulsively. Wisdom89 (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Confusing username discussion

Since people here are affected by changes in the username policy, I might as well point it out: there's a discussion on WT:U about what the "confusing usernames" prohibition is intended to accomplish, and whether we should still have it. Join the discussion if you want. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle specifications

What happened to the more specific and detailed TW UAA criteria? Not sure if this is the correct place to ask - but I feel it would give administrators (and reporters) the ease to identify problematic usernames, ones that require immediate attention. They're way too generic now. Thoughts? Wisdom89 (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Those criteria were removed because they are not derived from the policy. They were, but they led led to misunderstandings. Even when they were in the policy, they were examples, not criteria. However, people mistook them for criteria, so they were removed. They were then removed from Twinkle as well. SamBC(talk) 11:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok, thank you for the clarification. There must have been a discussion regarding the changes, I suppose I just missed it. IMHO those breakdowns served as a benefit rather than a hindrance. Now there seems like a far greater chance of ill-conceived or misguided reports. Anyway, thanks for the reply. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

WT:U would be the correct place to ask, and there you'll find a whole lot of discussion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what hardblocks are for

I'm glad that people are being more cautious about username blocks now. I've seen a lot fewer false positives being blocked recently.

In an example of things possibly swinging too far the other way, I noticed that the user "(Wikipedian's handle) took a shit in his pants" was softblocked. Somehow I doubt we want to welcome that guy back. That name is a blatant attack on a user. The user should have been hardblocked, so he doesn't come back to be disruptive under another name. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I was the one who reported said user, I have to agree. Let's not swing too far the other way, leniency-wise. Although, I agree wholeheartedly, and thanks to discussion with Rspeer above at WP:U, myself and others are being extremely (although not overly) prudent regarding the names that are reported. It's a good thing there's a fleshing out going down. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Hate"

What is wrong with having "hate" in you username, as long as it isnt a personal attack? T.Neo (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily anything; the inclusion of "hate" patterns in the bot's blacklist has been subject to a certain amount of chop and change for some time. Bot reports do not represent things that really need blocking, they represent things that someone who knows about stuff should take a look at. SamBC(talk) 10:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. T.Neo (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New template

After consulting with the operator of the bot to make sure it wouldn't mess up like the last time I tried this without checking; I have switched out the instructions to refer to the new template {{user-uaa}}, so user-reported reports should start coming in with this template. The main feature (and reason I made the template) is the "hardblock" and "softblock" links that automatically fill in the reason and checkboxes, and also some of the links of Template:Userlinks that seem to me as being less useful for responding to username reports are omitted for space (though if anyone disagrees feel free to edit the template). —Random832 14:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure HelperBot does the right thing here

Last night I reported an account on WP:AIV. Right after I filed the report, it suddenly occurred to me that the username was "Suckitlosers", so obviously I should have gone right to WP:UAA (I hadn't even been paying attention to the username, I was just clicking buttons in Twinkle to do the reverting, warning, and reporting). So at that point I also filed a report here.

An admin apparently spotted it on the WP:AIV list and also did not really notice the username, and instituted a 12-hour block. Okay, fair mistake.

But then helperbot removed the WP:UAA report because the user had been blocked for 12 hours. I don't think that is the correct behavior. A username reported to UAA has two outcomes: either their username is deemed acceptable, or it isn't and they get an indef block. A temporary block is never an appropriate conclusion to a UAA report. So I don't think Helperbot should remove the report automatically unless the block is indefinite. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that in theory we were trying to encourage people with "bad useranmes" to simply register new usernames that are compliant with WP:U? Meaning that IFF the current system is working then 100% of the people who are usernamesoftblocked should be discarding their current usernames and creating new ones, meaning that the length of the block should be irrelevant. Now of course that only applies to usernames created in good faith, but it would still be an exception to the statement that "A temporary block is never an appropriate conclusion to a UAA report". Keep in mind that this is a conditional statement. --VectorPotential^Talk 22:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but the first part of your condition is obviously false, i.e. there will always be at least some people who register in bad faith and have no intention if re-registering with an appropriate username. So for that percentage of users, regardless of how large or small, it is relevant, because you have the possibility of them returning with the errant username after the temporary block.

I guess it's a small problem, and I'm obviously not suggesting a policy change... but all other things being equal, I don't think the helperbot should remove UAA reports for temporary blocks. If that ever happened, then the person was most likely blocked for a reason other than username. I could argue that if the blocking admin disagreed with the UAA report, they should have to remove it manually even if the account was temporarily blocked for something else -- although that does create extra work for the admins, though, hmmm....

Okay, question: Is there a way to manually stop Helperbot from removing a report even if the person has already been blocked? If that already exists, that would cover the rare case that I had the other day -- I would do the extra legwork instead of admins, in that case, because I would say, "Oh, whoops, the admin didn't notice the bad username, let me re-report it with this little flag that tells HelperBot not to remove the report, and then some admin will come along and notice it." --Jaysweet (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue that could be mitigated by modifying the bot to only remove indef blocks from this page, and mark shorter blocks with a note. But given that the bot was designed for AIV, and is serving this channel as an afterthought then it may be a bit of a hassle. Either way the code is available and GFDL. Jays idea of marking a report with a marker would be much easier, such as adding <!-- nobot --> to it. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Layout suggestion

Can I suggest that the headers for Bot and User reported are taken down a level, to keep in line with WP:AIV? That way, if both AIV and UAA are transcluded on the same page, they match more closely. Also, in my opinion, it gives the admin sections more continuity if they have the same heading levels. What's opinion on this like? Stwalkerster [ talk ] 11:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, I can't see the harm, and it does look better at AIV. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and change it then. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the repeated character check

Someone added a regex to HBCNameWatcherBot to report names that have repeated sequences of characters, such as "poiupoiupoiu".

Now, the name "poiupoiupoiu" does not violate any sort of policy. It doesn't even come close. But the bot is reporting such names anyway. And, as often happens here, I see people assuming that the bot reports are good examples of usernames to report, and recommending blocks on names as simple and unconfusing as "v9v9v9". (I know we have all sorts of disclaimers that bot reports are not to be trusted, but people don't notice those, and they naturally assume that if a bot's doing it it's because it's the right thing to do.)

Why do we have this regex? How does it help Wikipedia to have a bot complain about repeated letter sequences? I'd like to remove that rule from the bot's blacklist. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just so long as you then add back the one for individual repeated characters at that sort of length; those have far greater potential to be confusing. Don't know if anyone else will object, mind. SamBC(talk) 09:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a strange request, and I'd rather not follow it. If I did that, I'd be endorsing the idea that repeating a letter is a blockworthy offense. User talk:Ggggggggggggggg12 is the incident that drew my attention to UAA abuse in the first place.

Anyway, the bot is not the core of UAA. If people want to report names for repeating letters, they are free to do so without a bot beating them to it. (Meanwhile, I'm free to ask them why they are bothered by repeating letters, and whether they have considered options less severe than blocking.)

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with allowing repeating characters in usernames. Username blocks are vicious, and often hit new users. It's frustrating that people who have vandalised -but now stopped vandalising- the project are not blocked, yet new users who happen to pick a name that matches some reg-ex get blocked. It's not particularly welcoming. Dan Beale-Cocks 16:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A reply to the above

I think you're wrong to remove these patterns, and I've WP:BOLDly restored them. Feel free to remove them again if you disagree after reading the following:

Yes, usernameblocks are a strong measure, but we need to balance two different kinds of problem.

The bot is not intended as a censor, and the list explicitly does not attempt to catch all possible kinds of offensive names; rather, it is a flagging system for human attention, which tries to catch only patterns associated with abusive accounts. These include both certain types of grossly offensive patterns, and other patterns which, whilst not offensive, correlate strongly with abusive behavior. For example, "sucks" is not really that offensive a term, but is almost invariably associated with either a personal attack or a vandalism-only account. As a result, a great many abusive accounts are being caught at origin, and the fun level for vandals has significantly decreased -- and with it. the level of vandalism from this class of account.

As the principal current contributor to the blacklist/whitelist combination, I've spent a lot of time tuning it to try to maximize the number of true positives whilst minimizing false positives and false negatives, and spent a lot of time chasing up individual cases of blocked names to check on their behavior.

Just to clarify, the bot does not disallow repeated characters or patterns. To trigger the bot warning, the repeated pattern has to be at least 12 characters long; for example, the specific example given above, of "v9v9v9", would not be blocked, nor would (say) "Gggggggggg12". There has to be a cutoff somewhere, and any binary detector must trade off false-positive for false-negative errors; 12 characters as the limit for firing off warnings has worked quite well for some time. Just as there is a cost for false-positive errors, there is also a cost for false-negative errors; see below.

Whilst there is nothing offensive about typing-pattern usernames, blocking them can be justified under the username policy requirements in two ways: confusion and disruption.

Long experience has shown that users with typing-pattern usernames almost invariably do not intend to use their accounts for constructive purposes. (Actually, the same is almost invariably true of accounts with "lololol" and "hahaha" in, but this created such a furore before that they did get removed from the list as too WP:BITEy).

Typing-pattern names like sdsdfjs, sdlfjssdj, sdfjsdlj (just for example) are also difficult to remember or distinguish from one another; similarly with (for example) babababababababa and bababababababababa or eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee vs. eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Typing-pattern usernames are almost always vandal accounts, and very, very few legitimate new editors are ever affected by these blocks. Usernameblocking these names preemptively saves far more admin time than it wastes, and helps substantially reduce the overall level of disruption seen by editors in general.

Again, the bot is only a tool; if admins consider that a name is acceptable, they can always exercise their discretion and just remove the name from the list instead of blocking.

-- The Anome (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The change in policy means that, now, these patterns will almost never lead to valid UAA reports.

I understand the goal of flagging possibly-abusive accounts, but that really belongs on a separate page. UAA is about enforcing the username policy with blocks, so it's very misleading to have a bot list non-block-worthy offenses in the middle of that page just to get them more attention. I don't mind the use of these regexes to check accounts, but it is even clearer now that they should not be used to place names on UAA. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Recently resolved" section

I'm starting up a section on this page to keep track of reports that are resolved, like many other noticeboards have. This gives us a place to use the shiny and helpful new templates in {{UAA}}, also. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

How will that work? _(1 == 2)^Until 19:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we even need them templates? The people that report here know what gets blocked and what doesn't, plus UAA is a little less active than AIV, so admins get a longer time to review each case. Rudget (review) 19:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The people that report here know what gets blocked and what doesn't? Since when? Anyway, I've made the section. People can optionally add the reports they resolve to it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes; the bot automatically removes them from the list if/when they are blocked. I think the section is sort of redundant.   jj137 (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If the purpose of this new section is to give a brief review of the block, we always have other users telling us if we were incorrect anyway. Rudget (review) 19:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried leaving individual messages for all of the people who make invalid UAA reports or the admins who needlessly block good-faith users? I do it sometimes, but it is not a pleasant thing to do. It's easy for you to suggest because I don't think you're ever the one who ends up confronting people individually over misuse of UAA.

Look at things like checkuser; they leave the valid and invalid reports there, and part of the idea is that you can read the page and understand what an invalid checkuser request would be.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As an example of why some continuity is helpful, did anyone else notice that User:Thenationalohsunnysgodandhiderekworkersparty was just blocked for no reason whatsoever (or actually, if you check the block notice talk page, for not using spaces)? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think most admins that process WP:UAA would block that user name. I would have as well. There is a strong consensus that overly long/complex/untypeable user names are annoying to very many users, and are disruptive and distracting from the effort of building Wikipedia. Names that can't easily be read, parsed, remembered, or typed are hard to use to address users by or refer to them by on talk pages and other discussion, and are particularly susceptible to typographical errors (which render any links invalid). There's no reason for a user to have a preposterous mess like that as a user name, and I have no problem with the community, through its administrators, saying "uh... pick another name, OK?" There's nothing wrong with making disposition of WP:UAA cases easier to review, but a look through the history of the page will show via edit summaries (either bot removal of blocked names, or explicitly left comments) what recent activity has been like. --MCB (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A name of 44 letters, with clear visual parsing clues (such as spaces or capital letters), is likely to be confusing due to its length. A name of 44 letters without clear visual parsing clues is blatantly confusing. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask - i) Who gets confused by that name? ii) What happens if they do get confused? Why does their confusion matter so much that we're prepared to block an editor? (PS: Your username, and sig, are very confusing. "BIG BLOCK NOTICE - this isn't about you or your edits, but you've been blocked until you change your username. etc") Dan Beale-Cocks 12:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

MCB, while I believe it is sadly true that many admins that process UAA would violate WP:U without reading it, this needs to change. That's why I want to be able to have the page more clearly establish precedents. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that the present process is clear, successful, effective, and enjoys wide support, and I don't see a pressing need for change. --MCB (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, as long as the present process will uphold the present policy. Let's see. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up on confusing usernames

I believe we've finally come to a compromise on confusing usernames at WT:U that can stick. A username can no longer be blocked on UAA solely because it is confusing (to someone), but only if the user knows it is confusing and refuses to change it when requested.

Confusing usernames can also be seen as part of a larger pattern of disruption, when blocking someone for disruption or vandalism. (This should go without saying, but blocks for disruption or vandalism are not username blocks, and should not be requested on WP:UAA).

This means that most "confusing username" reports on UAA will be invalid, unless they are for the rare case that discussion with an otherwise good user has occurred and failed. There will of course be some transition time where people keep reporting such names, so we should simply remove those reports with an explanation.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/holding pen to keep track of users that have already been warned that their usernames are confusing and should be changed - it'll keep us in check of who's been warned, who hasn't and who is/isn't still editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha. You know, now that you're having that page handle the case of promotional usernames as well, it makes a lot more sense to me. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup - as with confusing usernames, no need to block on sight. It'll take a bit of work getting it into action over the next few days/weeks but we'll thrash it all out in the end. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've linked to the holding pen in the header. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in a bit of analysis on the holding pen, now that we've had it in effect for a couple of weeks. I think it's doing the right thing for promotional usernames, but so far it hasn't appeared very useful to me for confusing names (except to give username reporters the feeling that they're doing something).

Have there been any "last-resort confusing username blocks" under the new policy? Recall that such a block would require a series of events that strikes me as very improbable: a good faith user (for some reason) refuses to change their confusing name, after another user reasonably aand legitimately asks them to.

The holding pen has good intentions, but I get the feeling that in this case it's being used to diligently watch for an event that simply won't happen, and wouldn't even be that bad if it did. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Where was the consensus to make the change to the username policy? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Change to the Username Policy regarding confusing usernames for discussion on your changes. KnightLago (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was a consensus, and proposed there (WP:AN) that we just revert back to the pre-April 4 policy and language. It was working fine and there was no need for the "holding pen" or further bureaucracy or instruction creep. --MCB (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

KnightLago, the consensus was on WT:U, exactly where you should expect it to be. Come on over.

MCB, you are confused. The holding pen isn't part of the policy. You should sort out whether you're arguing against people using the "holding pen" process, or whether you're arguing against the change to enforcement of confusing usernames. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Could somebody create some templates specifically stating that a users username is too confusing to use and giving instructions about how to change it? It should also state that they will be blocked should they continue normal editing (obviously in a very nice way!). I would, but I'm a little tired. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to disagree with you there -- we shouldn't mention a block in our first communication with the user. I could make such a template, without the blocking threat, later. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, well that was one of the only reasons I agreed to the change in policy :-S I don't want this to turn into a case where all users who have confusing usernames have to go through RFCN, this is one of the major problems with allowing usernames that go against policy remaining unblocked until discussion with them has taken place. When I said we should discuss it with the user, we should explain the policy to them and ask them to change it without the need for a block. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, there's a difference between a policy involving them possibly being blocked, and an intent to mention it immediately in the first communication. Take a look at {{test1}} and {{test2}}; neither mentions blocking, although we certainly do block people for vandalism. Mangojuice^talk 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Mangojuice has it right on. It's not my intent to force everything to go through RFCN, just to stop biting newbies, using the same techniques other processes use to avoid biting newbies. A discussion can be a lot more civil when it doesn't have the words "OR WE WILL BLOCK YOU" in it; save the threats for when you need to threaten. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

spam-only accounts with promotional usernames

I've created a special template to use for promotional username blocks. {{usernameblock}} is not really a good message because it implies that only their username is a problem when this is not the case -- in a great many such cases, I have had to decline unblock requests from such users who thought that we were merely objecting to their username, not their actions. So I'd like people to try using my new template instead: it's {{uw-spamublock}} (or, perhaps easier to remember: {{spamusername}}). (And of course, feel free to edit the templates to improve them.) Mangojuice^talk 19:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I was going to propose separate templates for the various username block reasons, since I was ending up using the "reason" field in {{uw-ublock}} every time, which created the problem you mention, where the template language makes it sound like coming back with a new name would make everything OK. I guess it might need a few language tweaks but I can't think of any at the moment. --MCB (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that any unblock must involve a username change, should we not use {{unblock-un}} in the instructions rather than {{unblock}}? Other than that, I like it. Mayalld (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

unblock-un doesn't allow for any text from the user except the new username. So, I don't think that works. Mangojuice^talk 02:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry!

I tried to edit this page and appear to have screwed it up, but am having trouble reverting my change. Could someone please help out? Thank you! Fasrad (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate those templates

Why do we need templates for every little thing? I don't need to see a sea of icons when its backlogged, and they just in the way. What's their purpose? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The page seems to be littered with declined usernames that have been templated. However using a template for something like "waiting for edit" or some such might be ok. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with EVula, and frankly find them more confusing than if people just typed what they meant. --MCB (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated the template Template:UAA for deletion. Mangojuice^talk 19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

On blocking actual spammers

I said this after Wisdom89 asked about it on my user page, and figured it could use a wider audience.

There's been a lot of opposition to the kind of username reports that people make where we're supposed to block people with no evidence of wrongdoing, without discussing the problem with those users. (Particularly problematic are the ones where the only reason the person is being reported is a subjectively "confusing" username, so I'm glad we've settled on discouraging those in the policy.)

Should this be taken to mean UAA can't block anyone without discussion? Of course not. Wisdom89 brought up the kind of thing where users who have created spam pages are posted here in a massive list, and I responded:

I don't agree at all with many of Calton's actions, but this is one of the more benign and possibly even useful things he does. He establishes evidence of spamming before he reports names to UAA, which is more than we get in most reports. Now, occasional blocks he requests seem unnecessary, and I think he might be better off reporting somewhere such as WT:WPSPAM (in which case he can report even the ones that aren't blatant in their usernames). It's kind of a shame that we're so lacking for a high-profile place to block spammers that the username policy has to fill in the job.

So, food for thought. Why do usernames get more attention than spam? So much more that we have to use the username policy to block spammers? Shouldn't there be a Wikipedia:Spammers for administrator attention that's just as efficient? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to emphasize strongly what I initially learned was the policy of UAA, even if that's changed because of the attitude of some admins: UAA is only for blatant, unquestionable policy violations. Patently foul language (Fucktard), defamatory names (Kateisacutter), names which match companies and products (CocaCola), and maybe totally confusing names (Kdjrwkhn, though this is not my style). Anything even slightly up in the air, such as promotional names without contribs or things that may be in a foreign language, are to be taken to the community discussion board (I forget the acronym, despite contributing there a long time ago). Spam is especially wishy-washy, and I don't think it's the ideal use of this page. If they are obvious spammers, just use AIV. VanTucky 04:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Spammers who choose spammy usernames are, in essence, pointing themselves out; they'll be blocked here faster than at the often rather congested AIV, which is helpful to the project. So I am grateful for the spam username reports, assuming they have actually made a spam/promotional edit or article creation. --MCB (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A question still remains. Should a user who has chosen a name which matches an organization, company, musicgroup etc..etc..and has edited maybe a few times in a promotional-like manner be blocked from editing? After all, the user may be unfamiliar with WP:U or WP:ADVERT. If they were approached via talking before and after their edits, they maybe persuaded to stop, as perhaps no malice or disruption was intended. Spamming has an extremely negative connotation to it. If they were to realize this, and contribute productively, does their alias matter all that much? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a point. Also, Calton's on to bands now, and I find these to be considerably more out of place on UAA. These are just ordinary people who might be interested in Wikipedia and don't understand our standards for article inclusion. When someone writes an article about a non-notable band, we don't block them, we just speedy the article. If someone uses their band's name as their username but edits constructively, we don't care at all. But the intersection of the two means we need to block them indefinitely? That doesn't make sense. Also, I don't think "role accounts" enter into it at all. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Remember how I said that Calton's listings were benign to helpful? Never mind. He seems to have missed the idea that UAA is for clear-cut cases that require blocks. Anyone who would restore previously-removed listings with a snarky edit comment is not using UAA in a helpful way. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh indeed. I'm sure he feels his reports are absolutely justified and in the best interest of the Wiki (spamming needs to be quenched), but that's not the proper attitude at all. They certainly shouldn't be relisted anyway, as I'm assuming an administrator removed them. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed them. (Which, unfortunately, is probably part of why he was so quick to revert.) The fact that I'm an administrator shouldn't be relevant, though; everyone who participates constructively has an equal say in policy issues. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that completely. WP:NBD and admins aren't special : ), however, it's customary (at least from what I've seen) that admins will look at the listed names and then decide whether they should be removed, not the casual editor, even though it's perfectly fine to do so. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line, though, is simply that relisting them with that edit summary was uncalled for. It's missing the point of UAA. You can see my talk page for the brief exchange we had. As a courtesy, Calton should be invited to come here and participate in this discussion if he cares to. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• What's the difference between a spammer and a clueless newbie making good-faith edits to relevant articles? "Food Bank For New York" added links to a bunch of articles. That account was not given a welcome template, they were not told about COI, they were not given any useful information about how to contribute. A user reverted the edits as vandalism (which they probably weren't) gave two templated warnings, then reported the user to UAA. The links they added were to actors making announcements for a 'charity' foodbank, on the actor's article page. Clearly inappropriate edits, but something that deserves an instant indefinite ban? Dan Beale-Cocks 17:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The usual suspects

If you are looking for the usual username suspects, you may want to periodically run a check through grep:

• cock
• cunt
• fuck
• piss
• shit
• tits

Feel free to move this list to a subpage. -- GregManninLB (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't HBC NameWatcherBot (talk · contribs) already run the Special:Log/newusers through a similar set of regular expressions?--VectorPotential Talk 18:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. _{1 != 2} 15:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Template for confusing names created

On Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator_attention/Archive_2#Templates a template was requested to notify a user that their username is confusing and needs to be changed, or else they might be blocked. Consensus was that the "block threat" needed to be toned down.

I have now created {{uw-confuser}} that can be used for this purpose. It is written in a nice, non-threatening tone, but still gently indicates that the user could be blocked if he doesn't respond. Is he back? (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've just removed the above template from WP:UTM, just to get a bit more background info before it goes live. Templates are not usually added to the UTM until there has been a discussion either there or at WT:UW, where they gain some form of consensus before going live.

My first thought is that UAA was created to address these issues and they would make rulings on confusing or inappropriate usernames. By creating a template in the UW format means this is a tool whereby anyone can criticise or make a ruling on anyone else's username. Secondly I'm not entirely sure that this falls under the user warnings (UW) template systems, as this is a procedural template, whereas the majority of UW templates are about addressing behavioral and editing issues. I have no problems with the template but not entirely sure it fits in with the UW system. ^Khukri 14:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't use UAA to deem someone's username confusing (despite what TWINKLE says), because UAA is for requesting immediate blocks, not for drawing attention to problems that are not serious enough to require immediate blocking. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK so UAA doesn't deal with it, UW doesn't, where would this be addressed, ANI? ^Khukri 22:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My impression from the discussion I linked above is that you would use the template to notify someone that their name is confusing, and if they keep editing without responding, they can then be reported to UAA where an admin will come to a decision (alternatively to RFCN if the confusion is borderline). But confusing names shouldn't be reported to UAA straight away without attempting discussion first. Is he back? (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not AN/I either. Why would you insist on having a centralized discussion about such a minor issue? It belongs on the user's talk page. A template for this would be a good idea, assuming it's worded appropriately. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you out here, but I'm just getting no's, with no other solutions or ideas forthcoming. I've already said its a good idea for a template it just doesn't belong at uw as it's more procedural than behavioural. ^Khukri 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this template just a special-case duplicate of {{uw-username}}? Why is this needed rather than just {{uw-username|It may be unnecessarily confusing.}}? Anomie⚔ 13:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Something Odd

Has anyone else but me noticed that the New users log is displaying new user names twice? Special:Log/newusers I don't know where else to post this, so my apologies from the start. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. As soon as I posted this, someone appears to have fixed it. But if you scroll down, you can still see double names. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Unified login has begun

A heads-up for anyone watching usernames: unified login has been enabled for all users. We're starting to see usernames from other projects automatically created on enwiki.

If you see a surge in the number of apparently "confusing" usernames created, this is why. It is more important than ever not to block a username solely for being "confusing".

(Cross-posted to WT:U)

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Stacey Robert Greenstein (talk · contribs)

Someone needs to investigate this further. I must have annoyed someone pretty good for them to want to create an account with MY REAL NAME and do page move vandalization. Please block their other account(s) and/or IP(s). - UtherSRG (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The account has been blocked, and, from what I can see, all the edits have been reverted. —BradV 02:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know this one account has been blocked, but they obviously have at least one other account or have editted using an IP. This is not a random account creation to make vandalism, it is a malicious user using an alternativ emeans of attacking. Please do a check_user or whatever else is needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Cabotool

Cabotool (talk · contribs) — A request was filed via WP:ACC for the above username to be created. I created it, but the request was subsequently rejected post rem per WP:U, as a misleading username which implies bot status. I wasn't so sure – firstly, the string "tool" doesn't automatically imply that the account is used for automated or semi-automated editing, and secondly, a Google search brings up a Yahoo ID and several profile/social networking profiles, suggesting that the name request was bona fide rather than intentionally misleading. Since a lot of these sorts of names go through UAA, I was wondering whether anyone could offer a third opinion. (No contribs as yet.) haz (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• That's... really silly. Of course the name should be created. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would promptly reject any report of "Cabotool" listed on UAA. No violation whatsoever. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you; I've marked the account as cleared. Thanks again. haz (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot Reported

Isn't there supposed to be a Bot Reported section?<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is - it's just blank at the moment :) Shereth 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh alright. I was just confused and scared that since there is no Bot Reports section there, the bots would go crazy and wreak havoc. Ehh, worst case scenario. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Automated account

I noticed some account is being created automatically. Once I reported an User:Vipbot, which was created automatically, but declined in UAA. But as far as I know "Bot" can only be approved via Bot Approvals Group. On the other hand, some accounts, such as:

• User:Luna Santin loves Gräwp's cock
• User:Avril Lavigne vandal loves Gräwp's cock
• User:Herbythyme loves Gräwp's massive cock
• User:Persian Poet Gal REALLY loves Gräwp's massive cock

are blocked as they contained offensive term. So does it mean that user should not report any account (contains the term bot) that created automatically except those offensive user names. I want to know further about this matter. Thanks in advance --NAHID 08:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll chime in as I was the one who declined Vipbot. The reason I declined to block it was because the account is a valid, approved bot on another project and the account was created automatically, meaning there was clearly no intent to masquerade as a bot here. There is certainly no harm in continuing to report such accounts to UAA, but if you want to do the 'homework' yourself and see if it is an approved bot somewhere else (and not editing here) then it's really not a problem. Shereth 13:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Behead rrance*

Is there any reason we actually allow usernames with "behead" in them to be created?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably because adding "behead" to the list of regexes in the blacklist would cause false positives. --MCB (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Sven?

Hello,

Sven (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) has never made any edit in this wiki. Is there any chance to get this account?

Another question: Benji (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) has only made two edits four years ago. What's with such accounts? Is there any chance to get these accounts?

Thanks for any answer. It would be nice if you inform me at commons:User talk:Sven about your comment :-) --87.166.249.52 (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Responded on Commons. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding usernames

Did there used to be something about adding new usernames to the bottom of the list? Has that changed to the top of the list now? Can it please be specified, as bots are adding to the bottom of their list, and users are adding theirs to the top of their list (except me, because I just did what I'm used to doing and put it at the bottom...) Thanks, Somno (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New reports should go at the bottom, I think. But IIRC, Twinkle always adds its reports at the top, or at least used to. Not sure about Huggle. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediawiki:Usernameblacklist temporarily disabled

Per this, the Mediawiki:Usernameblacklist is currently disabled due to a performance problem caused by complex expressions. There was a huge regex pertaining to Grawp that looks like the culprit, and it was removed, so hopefully it will be back on again soon. In the meantime, we need to keep a close eye on WP:UAA, since the usernames that were blocked in software can currently be created. The NameWatcherBot will post most (possibly all) of them on the UAA/Bot page, but this will still need extra attention until the blacklist is back in action. --MCB (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Example line

I just added it back, because it is the recognition string that TW uses to place reports Mayalld (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We can remove one line and stop TWINKLE reports? Sweet! Would anyone else support the idea of re-removing that line until TWINKLE starts following the username policy? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Me? :) Shereth 17:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Reason parameter for uw-username

I have gone ahead and re-added the big red warning that shows up when someone uses the {{uw-username}} template without specifying a reason why they think a username violates policy. Too many people are just slapping the template on people's talk pages without specifying what is wrong - in some cases this is not immediately obvious (e.g. User talk:Kennyhotz). If a username violation is so blatant that no explanation is needed, then that username should be reported to WP:UAA. If you want to discuss a username violation with a user, I think it is common courtesy to tell them exactly what the concern is. Is he back? (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good call. WilliamH (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As an example of how much some people care: User:666thedevil666 was warned for "NO REASON GIVEN" and then blocked by Hersfold one minute later. We've got some work to do. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Sometimes I wonder if folks even bother to look at the template they've left behidn :/ Shereth 17:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Change in policy/procedure?

Okay, I've been stewing over this for a while and I think it's time I brought it up.

The first two bullet points of our handy-dandy template state:

• When you report a name here, you are asserting that the user with that name needs to be immediately blocked. Your report must explain what is problematic about the username, as not all violations of the username policy require blocks.
• For ordinary violations of the username policy, do not use this page. Instead, warn the user and ask them to change their name, possibly using the {{uw-username}} template.

Is this being ignored? I mean, seriously. We're seeing an awful lot of pretty innocuous, if obnoxious, stuff on here. Does some guy whose username is the name of his company pose so dire a threat that it needs to be immediately blocked? I don't think so. How many of these people are getting the warning with {{uw-username}} prior to showing up on UAA? Very few. This is getting silly.

Would there be any agreement to altering our username policies and blocking procedures, with a statement to the effect that "With the exception of certain violations that require immediate administrator attention (such as blatantly offensive or disruptive usernames), accounts that violate the username policy should be warned with {{uw-username}} prior to making a report at UAA. Reports made to UAA without previously warning the user will be removed from the UAA page without action."

I don't know about anyone else, but it's getting tedious having to deal with all of these borderline cases that aren't really doing any harm. Shereth 17:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the best interests of the project are served by blocking spammers on sight, and I think that position manifestly represents a consensus of editors and admins, by their actions in reporting, and blocking, promotional user names. Registering an account User:XYZ Company and creating the article XYZ Company will, and should be, blocked. That is not a legitimate use of Wikipedia, spam is a form of vandalism, and blocking them is a pretty simple case of WP:RBI. In the rare event that someone who does that actually wants to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, they can register another user name. In addition to the direct reduction of spam and promotional articles, there is also an indirect effect: if readers see the user name User:XYZ Company, they will think it is acceptable to use their company (band, school, organization, club, gaming clan, etc.) name too and you get a reinforcement effect. --MCB (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

But is there no room for separation between "spammers" and "new users unfamiliar with policy"? Look at it from the perspective of someone who checks out Wikipedia, sees the articles on well-known companies such as Ford Motor Company and Sears, Roebuck and Company. Said new user thinks "Hey, cool, I could write an article on the company I own/work for!" Not being familiar with our policies and procedures, they go ahead and write an article without citations and with "spammy" links and, worse still, decide to register under a user name that refers to the company. Overzealous editors immediately assume "Aha! Spammer!" and zap them with the block - said user is understandably confused and offended and never comes back. Who is to say that a significant number of them might not respond better to appropriate warnings, decide to familiarize themselves with policy and guidelines once they are made more aware of them, and go on to be a valuable contributor? Assuming someone is a vandal because their first few edits are not helpful is unwise, and assuming someone is a spammer just because their first few edits look spammy is also against the core spirit of what Wikipedia is. Where is the assumption of good faith? Where is the not biting the newcomers? Certainly there is a better approach to this "shoot first, ask later" going on. Shereth 18:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, company names that advertise do need to be immediately blocked, it is our policy. We don't allow spam anywhere else, why here? We block names that are promotional in nature. I user who does not know this is given a very polite template explaining what happened and how to create a new account. Chillum 18:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is false. Nowhere in the policy does it say "company names" should be immediately blocked - in fact the policy states use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited. Some administrators seem to have adopted a personal policy of "block all company names". This issue should be clarified one way or another. Shereth 18:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Chillum said "company names that advertise", not "company names". And the policy prohibits promotional usernames: "Promotional usernames are used to promote a group or company on Wikipedia." So while User:XYZ Company may not be prohibited per se, they sure are if they spam for their company name or their product/service. --MCB (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Then they should be dealt with through the proper channels as a spammer, not as a username violation. The core of the problem here is the interpretation of the key line in the policy: "Promotional usernames are used to promote a group or company on Wikipedia." Is this to be interpreted as "A user account with a company name as a user name, who goes on to use said account to promote said company", versus "A user account with a name that is directly promotional of a company". There exists a lot of "room for interpretation" as far as what constitutes outright spam. Chillum correctly points out that even those blocked get a polite template explaining how to remedy the situation (assuming {{uw-ublock}} is used rather than {{uw-uhblock}}, which is not always the case). As polite as the template may seem, the act of being blocked without warning sends a pretty strong message that may well drown out any of the nice language in the block template. But I would ask the following in any case: where is the real harm in asking users to discuss these "subject to interpretation" cases with the user prior to firing off a UAA report? Shereth 18:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Empirically speeking, how often do we get a user with name User:XYZ Company/Band who is not, in fact, there to write an article about their company/band? (And I can't speak for others, but I don't use a hardblock for those, though in blatant cases I can and do use the spamusername block; hblock is for the nasty jokes, the harassment, etc.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This question is impossible to objectively answer when the current practice is to block them on sight - there is no way to know what else they may be interested in writing. For what it is worth, though, you're describing a WP:COI issue, but I get the gist of where you are going. I think, really, that my whole point is that current practice does not allow for the differentiation between users who are here just to spam, and those who are making a good-faith effort to write about something they probably should not (COI again). I still stand by my opinion that we ought to be assuming good faith and giving these users a chance to familiarize themselves with the way Wikipedia works and contribute, rather than assuming their intentions are merely to spam. Shereth 18:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm going to chill out and leave this discussion alone for a bit and give some others a chance to discuss :D I just wanted to clarify what my primary point of contention was. Shereth 19:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't judge users on what that mightmaycouldsomedaysorta do, we judge them on what they've done -- and in the cases under question, what they've done is tried to use Wikipedia to promote themselves. Seems cut-and-dried to me. --Calton | Talk 23:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Your work eliminating spam and nearlyMySpace pages sneakily disguised as userpages is the most important job on earth and makes Baby Jesus smile. FishNewbieWikiNoob (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, it isn't, Mr. Sockpuppet, but you just keep thinking there, Butch, it's what you do best. --Calton | Talk 23:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutralhomer had the right idea. FishNewbieWikiNoob (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete = speedy block! Actually, no.

We've just had a huge run of unnecessary reports on "promotional" usernames. Were these usernames actually effective promotions of anything? Not really, unless you can read a username such as AOMF and instantly conclude what you're supposed to go buy.

This is Usernames for administrator attention. The conflict of interest noticeboard is that way, and it often leads to acceptable resolutions that do not require blocking. These reports were basically just the usual misuse of UAA as "requests for speedy blocking".

Having a conflict of interest, or getting an article speedy deleted, is not a blocking offense. Save the blocks for the malicious spammers, not the random newbies who don't understand Wikipedia yet.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

My take on the matter has always been that if the username is an explicit and unmistakable reference to a product or company or the like, and the user has edited in a fashion that is promotional of said company/product, then I interpret the name as being promotional. I agree with you 100% when it comes to acronyms like AOMF - it's a pretty big stretch to equate this with "promotional". Have you considered mentioning something to the users making these reports? I must admit my eyes about popped out when I looked at the UAA page this morning .. Shereth 17:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

My position is that when somebody registers as IAMD and their only edits are the creation of an "article" is a promotional description of the Interstate Alliance of Metal Demangers (IAMD) and the insertion of links to the IAMD's website in the article on metal demangement, that the username is clear evidence of intention to spam and qualifies them for the UAA's tender mercies. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really make that much sense. Sure, block them for spamming, they're spamming. But the username is a label, not a form of promotion. You can scream IAMD all you want, no one is going to know what it is. Thus, the username is not an abuse. Mangojuice^talk 05:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A username that matches a band, company, organization or any other entity that has not edited at all really shouldn't be blocked. They pose no threat of disruption. Far too often do I see usernames reported here that haven't made a single edit, or have been idle/inactive for days. In contrast, blocking usernames only seconds after registration can be extremely bitey. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Promotional names are spam Rspeer, we don't allow spam. There is a difference between a behavioral block and a username block. A username block comes with a polity invitation to choose another name. Chillum 18:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And you want to invite spammers to choose another name so we don't notice them next time? Why the hell?

The problem with each of these 9 names was not the username, but in some cases the behavior. We would be more effective at preventing spam if we focused only on the behavior instead of misapplying username blocks. My recommendation is quite simple: stop worrying so much about the name (unless the name itself is an advertisement) and look at the actual behavior. If they're spamming, block them hard, for spamming. If they're not, talk to them about COI and see what happens. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Restoring entries

Given User:Shereth's eccentric interpretation of policy and apparent lack of support for same, I'm restoring several items he removed from the page, for consideration by others. --Calton | Talk 23:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not after they have been declined twice (once my User:Rspeer, once by myself). Continuing to do so until you find an administrator who is sympathetic to your point of view is highly inappropriate. If you disagree with the decision made twice by two independent administrators the situation should be handled in a manner other than continuing to revert it. Shereth 23:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not even wrong: Rspeer was reverted by another admin (User:MCB) and admonished, and the talk page discussion above shows your judgment is not in line with actual policy and actual practice. Relisting your problematic and unilateral removals for consideration by others is the right thing to do. What, exactly, are you afraid of? --Calton | Talk 23:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of anything - but going through my contributions and cherry-picking some entries that I have declined in the past is extremely poor form. You've been admonished in the past for being a little over-eager with UAA reports, but you know what, if it is your personal mission to make sure that every borderline case gets slammed with a block, so be it. Honestly, if the majority opinion here is to run willy-nilly with the block button and continue striking down names that someone just might find offensive, ones that might possibly be promotional, or the like, then whatever. I can't really be arsed with trying to enforce some modicum of civility and trying to be more forgiving of newcomers' mistakes when it is apparently OK to dig about and repost my decisions until someone is willing to overturn them - there are other areas of the 'pedia I can edit. Have fun. Shereth 00:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's poor manner, form and etiquette to restore/undo the edits of a respected editor (whether admin or not) after they have taken the time to access names for UAA violation. If it's a real problem, then simply keep an eye on the situation and re-report. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the sniping, back to the issues

Look. It is clear that there are editors on this page who despise each other, sometimes for reasons going far back in time and extending far beyond UAA. And some of them are admins. We don't have to keep clarifying that any more.

Can we return to the issues? Lest anyone else insinuate that I am promoting spam, let me clarify that blocking spammers is a very good thing to do, but trying to manipulate the username policy to do so hinders that goal. The baseline for the username policy is that we block people for promotion when their username in itself is an advertisement. Some want to extend this to any username that mentions a company's name, and the border between those has been debated for months. (See WT:U for that discussion.)

My position is that blocking people with names that mention a company (presumably their company) actually hinders the goal of tracking down and blocking spammers, and preventing COI issues from arising. When people with a COI declare it proudly in their username, it helps us. If we give them a username block, we're inviting them to come back and hide their motives from us next time.

It is easiest to stop people from spamming or editing with an inappropriate conflict of interest when we know who they are. By all means keep tabs on the user, give them a warning or two, and if they actually are behaving badly give them a hardblock. Maybe try using WP:COIN more to get other people's attention. The misapplied username blocks solve nothing. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well said, and I agree. -- Ned Scott 08:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• I do agree with this (your point that it hinders the anti-spam goal) . I have been stingy with automatically issuing blocks for company names as usernames. I don't see anything wrong with it as long as they do not promote or edit articles on their own companies therefore getting into COI issues. My point is that just a company name as username is not bad in itself (excluding spammy names such as HeyBuyFromXYZ or domain names as usernames). -- Alexf⁴² 17:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agree, and this is why I created {{spamusername}}. Sure, those blocks may mostly come from this board, but the block message there makes it clear the COI/spamming is the reason for the block, and username is another problem too. Mangojuice^talk 07:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Heading changes

It seems that some of the unnecessary reports we get are because some users don't realize that this page is for requesting username blocks. Yes, it does say so in bold letters in the big orange "please skim these instructions and pretend you understand them" box, but not everyone notices that. The title could be a bit misleading. I've found that some people reporting names here were doing so just to say "hey admins, look at this name that's kinda weird" -- regardless of whether any admin action (that is, blocking) was necessary.

There are two things about the page that can be misleading like that. There's the benign sounding title, and there's the fact that the bot reports (which have a totally different meaning) appear on the same page. I'm not proposing renaming the page, but we could perhaps change the headings to be more descriptive, and in doing so clarify the purpose of the "user-reported" section.

My proposal:

• Change Bot-reported to Potential problems reported by bots.
• Change User-reported to Username blocks requested by users.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• I will endorse any change that stymies the borderline and unnecessary reports. Your proposal is cut and dry, without ambiguity. I can get behind it. Suggest "Potential username violations reported by bots" though. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree/support/endorse this change... just doing it should be fine. Does HBC NameWatcherBot look for the "Bot-reported" header? Alex Muller 09:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose header change, support other measures I'm all for trying to curtail the unneccessary reports, but I don't think heading changes are the way to go. People are already ignoring the orange box, and they will ignore the headers as well. The reason we get so many unneccessary reports is that people are learning from example. To improve that, we need to actually operate UAA the way is is meant to operate, not just change some headers to make it look that way.

• Tweak the bot blacklist to remove some of the very tame triggers that are only reported because "there might possibly be an issue". These triggers give people the wrong impression about what usernames constitute problems.
• Notify all users that place unneccessary reports with {{uw-uaa}}, to explain to them what the purpose of UAA is.
• Only use hardblocks in cases where the username was obviously created in bad faith. I've noticed that hardblocks are being used more and more liberally lately.

For some reason, enforcement of the username policy always seems to escalate to utter paranoia (remember how RFCN was in the beginning of 2007?). Everytime reforms are carried out to get things back how they are supposed to work, it works for a while, and then we're back at madness again a few months later. Changing two headers will just be an aesthetic change that will clutter the instructions even more. What we need is to cut down a bit on the overeager enforcement. Is he back? (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with this statement 100%. Shereth 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Changed my support form the previous option. What you say makes sense and it is sensible enough. I for one try to be careful with UAA blocks and have refrained from doing them and discussed with user often, while still issuing immediate blocks for blatant cases. More training/more information to UAA reporters is a good move. -- Alexf⁴² 16:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Before getting upset about a hardblock, make sure it wasn't for something else (like vandalism). That's an indication that people actually have their priorities in order, and deal with actual problems through the appropriate processes. It would be nice if the bot would tell us whether a block was actually a username block, though. Unrelated blocks show up just the same in the bot's edit summaries.

Right now, the only way to review past blocks is to look at the history page, and some of that is misleading information generated by the bot. A while ago, I tried to create a section for logging UAA reports -- listing all the recent names, and whether the report was declined or acted upon, and how. But this change was reverted by people saying the history was good enough. (Well, actually, it was reverted by the bot, which is so inflexible that it completely owns the page, but enough people supported the bot.)

But why not change the section headings? We can take other steps to reduce the clutter of the page, but it's not really increasing the number of instructions, and the current headings give an impression that is just wrong (that bot reports are anything like user reports).

Finally, if people think that the solution is more admonishing of our overeager username reporters, then I'd like to see someone else doing the admonishing sometimes. It's not always pleasant to tell someone who thinks they're helping Wikipedia that they're not. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point - has there been much in the way of discussion as to why UAA does not have an "archives" section in the same vein as WP:AN/I? On the other hand, I can already forsee the argument that the volume of reports here is considerably higher and might result in a lot of archives. Hmm. In any case, I'm not fundamentally opposed to changing the headings - just not convinced it'll do much good. Shereth 16:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the first step of removing some of the least offensive strings ("wtf", "smells", religious references...) from the bot blacklist. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to trigger-happy blocking admins

When placing arbitrary username blocks that aren't supported by the policy, try not to win people's edit wars for them. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Your interactions with other admins and editors regarding WP:UAA have taken an increasingly angry tone in the last few days. May I suggest a cooling-off period for what looks like a case of Wikistress, or perhaps devoting your talents in working with new users elsewhere for a while? Regards, MCB (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm going to have to take your recommendation with a grain of salt. Last I checked, you think UAA is fine, and think the solution to its systematic misuse is simply to tell people not to do it again. So here I am telling people not to do it again, and now that upsets you too.

Look at the case I'm referring to here, where User:Cumulus Clouds played an admin like a six-string guitar to get his opponent in an edit war blocked, and tell me it doesn't merit a strongly-worded criticism. Look at the case of سمرقندی, the global account of one of the most prolific users on the Urdu Wikipedia, who got welcomed to the English Wikipedia by someone misquoting policy at him and telling him his name wasn't okay, while simultaneously trying to get him blocked. (Well, the user in question says that despite the instructions on UAA, he wasn't trying to get anyone blocked, he was just trying to get the attention of admins, but "hey look admins, this Arab might need to be blocked, it's up to you" is just as bad.)

Are you saying I shouldn't have stepped in in these cases? That I shouldn't have told the users involved they're doing the wrong thing, or welcomed the newbies while clarifying that not everyone wanted them the hell off of en:wp? Sure, it's Wikistress, but I think the stress is completely merited by this week's escalating abuse of UAA, and others here have said as much. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rspeer, to say that I was "played like a six string guitar" because I blocked a username that I thought was inappropriate (and still do), is a complete mischaracterization of what happened. In fact, I find it quite insulting. I wasn't tricked in any way into blocking - I blocked it independent of anything except the confusing name itself. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for describing you like that. I particularly apologize for the title of this section, which is unnecessary. I intended to attack the practice of placing instant blocks for "confusing" usernames, not you in particular, which is why I didn't mention you by name, but I understand that you feel targeted by my words and apologize for that. I still suspect that CC's motives were not pure in listing his foe on UAA for an offense that isn't blockable per the username policy, knowing that there was a good chance someone would block him anyway. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the example with the GUID-FFFF-WHATEVER, the username was pretty confusing and I don't think the UAA report was "bad" per se. However, I have seen cases where people have reported a user to UAA in a vaguely disguised punitive move following a conflict over editing or something of the like, and caution does need to be taken in such cases. Shereth 16:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious: since UAA reports are supposed to be for clear violations of the username policy, what kind of violation do you think GUID-FFFF* was? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rspeer, your activity here has basically reduced to (1) removing names (often in batches) from UAA before anyone else can get to them, lest they be blocked by another admin; (2) scolding users for reports you don't agree with; and (3) scolding admins for blocks you don't agree with. This seems to be based on the idea that there is some sort of "systematic misuse" or "escalating abuse" of UAA, which just isn't supported by the record. There are occasional mistakes, like the reporting of the Arabic character user name (note that I was the first to correct that, here), but the vast majority of actions taken at UAA -- user reports and blocks (and declines) by admins -- are helpful to the project and in accord with policy. (I don't think either the report or block on GUID-FFFF* was unwarranted, and when he came back with another (even worse) name I asked him to change it, explaining why, and he did so.) While I'm sure that you are taking these actions for well-intentioned motives, running around telling everyone "UR DOIN IT WRONG" does not really advance the project, and presents an inconsistent standard for people with problematic user names. Hence my suggestion of a break or a refocusing of your efforts. --MCB (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to help create a consistent standard, you can help by supporting the username policy instead of maintaining your position that it is an incorrect rendition of the hidden "real" policy. Or, if you want to change the policy, you can try to get people to support your change. Meanwhile, you can also refrain from caricaturing those who work with the username policy by attributing misspelled, capitalized quotations to them.

Other users have said above that we need more of (2) to prevent misuse of UAA, and I have no idea what your point is with (1). By definition, the person who handles the report is the one who does so first; it is necessarily "before anyone else can get to it" because if someone else had gotten to it, they would be the one handling the report. Your complaint seems to be that I am somewhat active on UAA, I disagree with you, and I handled a backlog once. You've ascribed malice to me using the page exactly as it is meant to be used.

Incidentally, I have proposed (such as in the section above) a reworking of the page so that cases could be reviewed by people who were not "there first"; if I were to try to make this change (probably with the help of a bot), would you support it?

(3) is, of course, a sticky issue. Do we simply trust the judgement of admins as infallible? Well, several of the admins I've talked to have admitted that they hadn't thought through the issues before blocking. This goes for non-admins too; I just spoke to a user who didn't know there were avenues for dealing with COIs besides this page and thanked me for the pointer. So often these conversations have led to productive resolutions. Sometimes, of course, I meet people who are as convinced that their blocks are helping Wikipedia as I am that unnecessary blocks hurt Wikipedia, and we reach an impasse. But an impasse doesn't mean that the conversation should not have happened. Leaving a message on an admin's talk page is a wholly appropriate response. Consider that an unjustified block on an established user leads to a drama-ful thread on AN/I; I'd think that by keeping it on admins' talk pages I'm showing quite a bit of moderation, despite that I do not agree that newbies are more expendable than established users.

We disagree, but disagreeing with you is not forbidden. I don't know what record you're looking at, but if you have evidence that the way UAA works is just peachy, I'd be curious to see it. Meanwhile, I will still be here, I will still be working to fix the process, and I will still be siding with newbies by default because someone needs to do it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the evidence of the success of UAA is that the actions taken by admins, both blocks and declines, are rarely overturned and relatively rarely criticized (except perhaps by you). (Compare that with, for example, speedy deletions, or any number of other admin workflows.) Yes, there are occasional mistakes, just like everywhere else in Wikipedia. I just don't see that the project is improved by a crusade. I can't stop you from scolding people, and don't plan to try, but you might want to step back and think about it.

(By the way, "UR DOIN IT WRONG" is a popular humorous Internet meme associated with Lolcats and image macros ([15]) and was not meant to characterize your behavior in offensive terms. --MCB (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I know what UR DOIN IT WRONG is, but as a description of my motives it's incorrect and unreasonable. My point is not to cause shame to the admins involved, it's to help the newbies involved. This, unfortunately, sometimes requires working against the gentleman's agreement that no admin should be criticized for blocking a sufficiently new user (an agreement that, as you indicated, does not exist in other processes such as speedy deletion, image licensing, and other kinds of blocks).

That phrase just seemed to be part of how you take my actions and you caricature them. When other people decline UAA reports, they're doing what you're supposed to do on UAA; when I do it, I'm "removing names from UAA before anyone else can get to them". When you hold a position and stick to it, it's perfectly reasonable, but when I do it, it's a "crusade". You felt the need to insert that little "(except perhaps by you)" when discussing overturned decisions, and yet I rarely overturn username decisions and I get the blocking admin's permission when I do so. But you recently overturned nine of my decisions simultaneously without even asking.

If you're trying to change my views or my actions by claiming that you have the moral high ground, then UR DOIN IT WRONG. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Username

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It's likely not an issue, so I'm closing this discussion. If there is any disagreement, this really should be at WP:RFCN, not here. Shereth 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I came across User:February 15, 2009. I don't know much of username policies, but I'm not sure if this name is acceptable. What should I do? MrKIA11 (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to drop {{uw-username}} on his talk page as a first step. It's not offensive or promotional (unless it's a movie release date or something like that). It may be confusing, but more input from other editors would be good on that point. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 14:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It does happen to be the same date as the 2009 NBA All-Star Game. Does that change the matter? MrKIA11 (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, really. I was thinking more along the lines of Cloverfield, which, for a long time, was only identified as its release date. TN‑X-Man 15:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering he has not edited that article, nor has he edited 2009 Daytona 500 or National Flag of Canada Day, no it doesn't. But the second he edits Canadian Flag Day...we'll get him and prove our current operating theory that he's an undercover agent for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police deliberately flooding Wikipedia with his subtle pro-Mountie agenda... :) --Smashville^BONK! 15:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And to think that I trusted their poster boy. TN‑X-Man 15:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

He's already been blocked once in the last week on a different matter, which means many people were aware of the name. The username is weird, but not against any policies. It looks like he's been more civil since the block was lifted, too. --Smashville^BONK! 15:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No WP:U violation, just oddness. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, don't see a username violation either. --MCB (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name Watcher Bot question

Recently, I've seen a few usernames automatically reported for containing "bambi", which is apparently linked to teletubbies. Does anyone know the reasoning behind this flag? Thanks! TN‑X-Man 14:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Apparently they are commonly used by the "Disney Vandal" sockpuppets. The note code in the bot's blacklist had an error that prevented it from being displayed correctly. I'm not really sure what the utility in having NWBot report these to UAA are, though, as they are never username violations. It seems to make more sense to me that it'd report names used by vandals to AIV or something, so someone could keep an eye on it. Shereth 15:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I would think they would blocked more quickly for vandalism than a username violation, as the usernames are not blatant problems. FWIW, I don't think I've run across the Disney Vandal before. S/he sounds like a bad Batman villian or something. TN‑X-Man 15:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101, he/she doesn't even seem to be that prolific. I question whether we actually need this on the blacklist, considering the ratio of false positives to actual socks (I've only seen one at UAA so far). The editors of the affected articles seem to be getting them blocked quickly enough anyway... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps the bot could be set up to report the usernames that are often linked too sockpuppeteers to a different page as this page should only be for reporting username violations (which the word "Bambi" is not) and not as a center for reporting sockpuppets. Icewedge (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I would support that as well. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I would also support that. --Smashville^talk 17:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Me too. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Sounds good to me, but to which page would they go instead? TN‑X-Man 18:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It would probably have to be a new page as I don't know of any other active pages to which it would be easy to merge this functionality into; I imagine something like Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/suspect usernames. Icewedge (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is possible to have the bot report to an existing page - using the USE_HEADER flag, the bot will add a header to the report, so that it can be reported to s noticeboard, for example. Is he back? (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I was not talking about the technical problems, which as you say would be easily overcome, what I was saying that I don't know of any page where such a section would logical mesh with the pages current function. Icewedge (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Good idea. Support. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• I also support this. UAA is for blatant username violations, not for users that might turn out to be sockpuppets. I suggest we have the bot report these matches to WP:SSP, where there are a lot of people trained in long-term observations in order to uncover sockpuppetry. Alternatively, they could go to WP:ANI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Is he back? (talk • contribs) 12:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• As we seem to have agreement I have invited Krellis (owner of the bot) to come and comment. Icewedge (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This can be done simply by editing the appropriate patterns on the bot's blacklist page and adding the ALTERNATE_TARGET flag to them, as well as ensuring that the target page has the string "<!-- HBC NameWatcherBot allowed -->" somewhere in its wikitext. I'm not an admin, so I can't make changes to the blacklist, but I certainly have no objection to these changes being made - whatever makes the most sense for the wiki and admins who have to deal with the reports is fine with me. —Krellis (Talk) 13:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

One additional quick note, I'm not very active on-wiki, so please leave a note on my talk page or shoot me a quick e-mail if there are further questions that require my input here - I have this page watchlisted but it's quite possible I'll miss something if it gets lost in the noise of other stuff on my watchlist. Thanks! —Krellis (Talk) 13:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Request Completed

Thanks for the help, Krellis! I'm sure that everyone will be excited to hear that I've made all of the appropriate changes to set up WP:SSP/BOT! I edited the blacklist so that the name watcher bot will report all non-blatant suspected sockpuppet accounts to this page rather than WP:UAA. I also included the page at the bottom of WP:SSP in the same way that the bot page is included at WP:UAA. Please let me know if there is anything else I should do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioeth (talk • contribs)

Cool. Good work, Ioeth! TN‑X-Man 14:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And it has its first report already! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious to see how long it will be before it is acted upon. TN‑X-Man 15:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably for a while. That's the whole point of reporting it there instead of here; so it can be monitored over a week or two since it's not a blatant violation. I just hope folks notice the new section! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Admins to report for Global Locking

Hi, I've have seen some bad usernames as part of the US elections. Since new users are unified now, could you report them on m:Steward requests/Global so they can't spread to other wikis. Thanks. Techman224^Talk 03:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment but that sounds unnecessary. The other projects/languages can deal with the bad usernames if they ever do LogIn to their Wiki (a local username is not created, only reserved, until they actually LogIn). Blocking every single username we block here would be just way too much work for our few stewards IMHO. Icewedge (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama/McCain/etc. usernames?

What exactly are we supposed to be doing with these? Obviously we block if they've blatantly been registered for trolling/personal attacks on the politicians - but has there been some recent ruling that I'm unaware of that prohibits any and all reference to the US presidential/vice presidential candidates in usernames? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My philosophy is, it's worth looking to see if they're vandalizing or saying something nasty about a candidate in their username. Also, some of these border closely on impersonation which is blockable. But I think that "fan" usernames (e.g. "Obamarocks" or the current "Obamawins") are not great username choices but are certainly not blockable. Mangojuice^talk 05:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The "backlog" notice is unhelpful

The bot that updates this page (User:HBC AIV helperbot3) has a thing where it will leave a "backlog" template if the page grows over a certain size, encouraging admins to come in and clean it out.

Now, this doesn't seem to fit with the way the page is currently used. We often leave names up for discussion, and this discussion is a good thing. (Although it would of course be better if people used more sensible processes, so that we could use this page only for the names that don't require any discussion, that won't happen as long as TWINKLE points people here.) I've said before that it's important to have some feedback about which reports are appropriate for UAA and which are not, and the brief period of discussion on each name provides that somewhat.

But the names under discussion aren't "backlogged". I'd prefer that the helperbot didn't post the backlog notice, or at least used a much higher threshold. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is specifically why the holding pen was created. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 01:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't find that a very useful way to use the holding pen. I understand the holding pen when it's for "this might be a problem if the user edits a certain way, so let's wait until we find out". But the point of discussing usernames is so that people on UAA see the discussion. Most people aren't watching the holding pen very carefully, so it would be a poor place for discussion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, UAA is supposed to be for inarguable violations. If a username has to be discussed for such a long time, then there clearly is doubt as to whether it is a violation; and it should then be removed from UAA and other means sought, such as discussing with the user. Is he back? (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Promotional" usernames

I'd like to raise the issue that a lot of editors are reporting names to be blocked here as "promotional" just because User:Lalala started a page called Lalala Group PLC promoting their company. In my eyes, this should not be a matter for UAA, it should be a matter for WP:COIN, or simply deleting the user's spam article and politely explaining to them that this kind of stuff is not accepted on wikipedia. Whatever happened to UAA only being for blatantly inappropriate usernames? A blatantly inappropriate promotional username would be something like User:www.lalalagroupplc.com, or one citing a slogan of a notable company the user works for maybe, but in most cases, a nondescript company name alone, especially if it's a non-notable company no one has ever heard of, shouldn't be enough to warrant an indefblock. - filelakeshoe 00:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; even though "Lalala" is part of common discourse, the user's edit in and of itself condemns the name as a spamusername. If the name isn't part of common discourse outside discussion of the company/band/whatever, it still merits an indefinite soft-block as a username which is that of a company/org/group. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Orangemike. If you use a company name as your username, and spam for that company, you should not be permitted to continue editing under that name. A company name per se may not be impermissible, but a company name plus one or more promotional articles should be blocked, or at the very least blocked until renamed at WP:CHU. --MCB (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Orangemike as well. This is exactly why we don't allow promotional usernames. These companies know that somehow getting notice on one of the highest-traffic Web sites in the world is as close to free advertising you can get. Somehow it hasn't sunk in that increasingly, their articles get speedied in a New York minute and their accounts get blocked almost as fast. Blueboy96 19:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. Spam usernames, pushing their product, and trying to get their Google ranking up are blocked on sight. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Filelakeshoe is right. We already have the processes in place to deal with spammers and conflicts of interest. There's no reason at all to freak out and jump straight to an insta-block just because of the additional factor that their username is related to what they're promoting, and there's a particular reason not to -- because the "freak out and insta-block" practice has often caught newbies who had no malicious intent.

Google rankings are a red herring. History pages aren't indexed by Google.

Orangemike and supporters, it sounds you're envisioning a policy that you would apply to malicious spammers. But the thing is that malicious spammers already get blocked! What's left are the newbies who thought "hey, I can write anything I want, how about I write about my company/organization" and then find out they can't. Yes, speedy delete the article. Yes, tell them about conflicts of interest and ask them to change their name if that's relevant. No, do not misuse the username policy to insta-block them. You'd have to be content with using the standard warnings if their username was unrelated, so why should the username make such a huge difference in the way we react? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No one's "freaking out". However, people who are here solely to promote their private interests are not welcome on Wikipedia. Using a username that discloses and corresponds with that simply gives us an early warning system that otherwise would have to be deduced or stumbled upon. There's no issue of "malicious intent" -- we're not prosecutors trying to demonstrate a user's state of mind -- simply that they are using Wikipedia for promotion, which is against the goals of the project. This is not some sort of drama involving good and evil here, it's just routine mop work keeping Wikipedia less spammy. --MCB (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There are policies for keeping WP less spammy, such as the spam policy and the conflict of interest policy. Think of whatever you'd do if they hadn't dropped a big hint in their username, and do that. When you make the assumption that people who make one promotional edit (or make zero promotional edits and look like they're going to make one) are here "solely to promote their private interests", you're assuming bad faith from newbies. You're missing the case where people are here not "solely to promote", but to experiment with Wikipedia, and believe at first that writing about their private interests is an okay thing to do.

If this approach were used elsewhere, it would be "routine mop work" to block people after one unhelpful edit, with no warnings. After all, they were here solely to vandalize. There are particularly blatant cases of vandalism where that happens to be true, just like there are blatant cases of spam where it's true. But we can already deal with those blatant cases, so what we get here at UAA are the cases that aren't actually blatant at all.

Most of the "promotion" reports we get here are policy-shopping. The spam policy doesn't go far enough or isn't fast enough for some people, so they try to get them blocked under the username policy instead. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd perfer than people with promotional usernames were allowed to keep them - it makes them easier to spot when they are spamming! --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Productions"

I'd like to propose removing "productions" from the auto-reported list. It rarely indicates that the user is promoting an actual company. It more often means that the user is 15 and full of himself, which is actually not quite a blockable offense. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have seen these often and remove them as false positives, so I have removed "productions" from the blacklist. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish you'd reconsider, Ed. I think it's a great warning, myself. "Blahblah Productions" often means that the user is 15 and full of himself and is creating articles about his YouTube channel "Blahblah Productions", his "world-famous" video that got OMG 27,000 hits, etc.; or else it's some rapper spamming about himself and/or his productions/client. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Orangemike about this. Can you give some examples of false positive hits for the term "productions"? -- The Anome (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Orangemike. I would rather remove accounts as false positives than not see them reported at all. TN‑X-Man 15:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised by the disagreement, but please feel free to revert - I won't object. It's not a big deal either way. -- Ed (Edgar181)

Agree with Orangemike as well. It's a good heads-up. --MCB (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like many people find it useful, so I have reverted my change. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Whitelist the word "republic"

I noticed that most names auto-listed because of the string "public" contain the word "republic" (or "republican") and end up being removed as false positives. I think that whitelisting the word "republic" will prevent a lot of false positives from being listed, but will probably not interfere with the listing of promotional usernames containing the word "public". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have added "republic" to the whitelist. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly disruptive username?

Hey folks,

I just blocked Sexx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) after a post to AIV. I blocked him for 12 hours, then noticed his username was "Sexx". So, I came here and made a post to notice board. I am not at all knowledgeable about how the username policy works or is carried out; thus, I hoped someone more knowledgeable could follow the appropriate course of action.

Oh, and I posted to the actual board, but the bot removes my post because I've already blocked the user. Could someone advise how this scenario is typically handled? Thx. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Not particularly a username violation by itself, unless we're all Puritans. It's likely a vandalism-only account, however. Username violations are dealt with by either blocking or discussion, depending on the severity. When blocking for username violations alone, account creation may be enabled or disabled as needed. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll ignore the username issue, as you say it's not a direct violation. After his block expires I'll keep an eye on him and address based on that (most likely, the username isn't the most pressing concern). Thanks for your help, the username arena is something I'm not very involved in. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. "Sexx" is not, of itself, a username violation. -- The Anome (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Need a second opinion

I just came across User:TheKOOLKIDSKLUB. After leaving a welcome message on his/her talkpage, it occurred to me that this username could be seen as "The KKK." I'm hesitant to take any action, as I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to username policy, so I thought I get some additional input. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 00:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What you may want to do is leave {{uw-username}} on the user's talk page. If they respond, you're set. If not, just monitor their edits. Based on the username alone, I think it's OK, but others may have a different opinion. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 04:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Tnxman. I've been keeping an eye on him, and he hasn't edited since, so we can probably let sleeping dogs lie. I've come across another which concerns me, however. Though he seems to be a constructive (or at least well-meaning) editor, User:DCsniper207 brings to mind John Allen Muhammad and the Beltway sniper attacks. I certainly don't intend to block him, as he is in no way a vandal, but is this a situation where the user should be asked to change their username, or am I making too much of this? faithless (^speak) 06:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I agree that something should be mentioned to the user. I don't know about anyone else, but that name sets my spidey-sense off. TN‑X-Man 12:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for another timely reply, Tnxman. Anyone else care to weigh in? faithless (^speak) 09:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree... I wouldn't block right now, but encourage to change his name as it may be seen as glorifying a crime. I know there is an essay or guideline on that, but I can't find it right now. I might not have a problem with it if it were something else, but since the DC Sniper is a known crime spree, it changes the parameters.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 09:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

blocked?

I reported User: UNITAN COMMUNICATIONS, and the bot removed the report from the list with the comment that they were already indef blocked, but the log does not seem to reflect this. So, what am I missing is my question I guess. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, the block log] I see shows that it was indef blocked in May. --MCB (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please block USER: CieloEstrellado

User:CieloEstrellado had been reverting all the changes I made in the List of countries by of Human Development Index article. I spent more than two hours on thursday night updating the page with the 2008 report. I had mistakes and I fixed it with the help of other members but he came today and changed the whole thing claiming it was inaccurate. I retrieved all the information from the UNDP websites I even told which documents should be downloaded to see the report, the rankings and the values for every country and he made a disaster out of it. I didn't want to go to an edit war but I had to because I spent too much time updating the page and fixing it. Then the user came up and said it was inaccurate and changed the whole thing and he didn't explain anything in the talk page. I contacted him and he didnt tell me why he made the changes he just said it was inaccurate. Please block this user or at least block him from editing the article. He vandalized my work. Tony0106 (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Of course your errors might be corrected by others; it's the nature of the game, you have to accept this. I did explain why I was making those changes, in no less than three pages: Talk:List of countries by Human Development Index, Talk:Human Development Index and your talk page. Take it easy. ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony, as an independent observer, I'd say that it is you that appears to be engaged in the unreasonable behaviour by reverting other editors' good faith changes in order to preserve "your" version of the article. Cielo certainly isn't engaged in vandalism. You need to work together on this. Incidentally, this page is the wrong one to raise these issues. If you believe it is vandalism it should be at WP:AIV, if you are concerned about behaviour you could try WP:ANI and if you are in an "edit war", try WP:3RR. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 10:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

QuiteUnusual is correct in that this is the improper page to raise these concerns. You may want to look at the dispute resolution process as a way to alleviate your concerns. I believe that CieloEstrellado translates to "starred sky" and thus is an acceptable username. TN‑X-Man 14:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This is when you insta-block for a promotional username

I often argue against applying username blocks for "promotional usernames". Particularly, I think many of these belong on WP:COIN, because the username isn't actually the problem, it just highlights the problem.

On the other hand, I'd like to give a positive example of when it makes perfect sense to put an immediate username block on someone for promotion. I've just blocked User:Drsoledotcom. Is the problem that it's a URL? No, lots of URLs are non-promotional and just used as online handles. But this URL in fact points to an online store that wants to sell you clothing. It could hypothetically benefit from having what's nearly a link to it appear in Wikipedia edit histories. This is a clear case where the username actually is what's doing the promotion.

If the user had actually made any promotional edits, that might merit a hardblock for spamming, but the user had only made one pointless edit so far, so I placed a softblock. rspεεr (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Impossible to comment

I want to comment on the name "dts illuminazione", but cannot because when I click the edit section, it does not appear in the edit screen. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've had that happen when the server runs a little behind. The name was removed shortly after it was reported. Have you tried purging? It might resolve the issue. TN‑X-Man 19:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

suggested blacklist addition

A while back, I boldly introduced a new blacklist rule for NamewatcherBot:, usernames longer than 25 characters. Uusernames longer than 25 characters in it self by no means violate any username policy (if it did the cavalry would come down on us), but in it's short while being a rule, it did catch quite some problematic usernames.

User:Rspeer removed the rule, citing that it was problematic, because people might think that long usernames are a violation of username policy per se. The reasonably good results from the rule though made me think about it again, and see what other people think. Maybe something with a clearer note that long usernames are not a violation, but sometimes need review for other problems? After all, the people taking action here are administrators who should be able to see if a username is problematic, and I see no problem with a bot pointing at a bona fide section of usernames, that could do with some admin review because of the relative amount of bad usernames amongst them. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. It's not really a problem to remove false positives and I can't remember someone complaining simply because they were reported here. If it's a problem, it'll be blocked, if not, it will be removed. TN‑X-Man 19:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can really call this a discussion, or consensus. Mind if I toss in a RfC? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Let me know if/when it goes up. TN‑X-Man 20:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking for a proper venue to list this, but I couldn't find it. WP:RFC/BOT is more about a dispute over the functioning of a bot, which is very harsh, and article style RFC doesn't fit because this is not an article. Policy RFC is for proposed policies which this isn't either. Any ideas on what other options there are? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You could hold a discussion here, whether a formal RfC or not. The discussion could be advertised on WP:Village pump (policy) and WP:AN. As an alternative, maybe we could just persuade Rspeer to come join this discussion and see if we can change his mind. Can someone link to an example of the warning that was being given for names longer than 25 characters? If NamewatcherBot flags the name, and an admin dismisses it, I assume that it is not required to notify the user, so he or she is not bothered. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the bot doesn't bother the user, but just edits this page. The concern, and the concern does hold validity, was that it might make people think that long usernames are not allowed, or frowned upon, which they are not. The note on this page is customisable.

As long as opinions are still tickling in, I'm fine with just keeping this discussion here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bots that give many false positives still do useful work. User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult, for instance. Or there is the 3RRBot, which is only an experiment, but still useful. (It may flag the wrong side of the dispute as the edit warrior). Such bots are only a tickler for admins to look further into the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, false positives can be made to be not too bad, but why go out of your way to create them at all?

Suppose someone decided that the bot needed a rule to flag all names containing the substring "pee" anywhere in them. It would only take a bit of thought to realize that this was a bad idea, that the majority of the users flagged by the bot would have utterly non-problematic names that just happened to include that sequence of characters within a syllable. (Hmm, I can think of one right now.) This is the case for over-25-character names, as well. There is no rule against having a long name, and 25 characters isn't even particularly long. There have been many active Wikipedians with names from 25 to 45 characters long. Heck, many people's real names are longer than 25 characters.

False positives can be harmful on UAA. They set the tone for the rest of the page. When the bot was flagging every mention of every deity, then people started making manual reports and even blocks on users who happened to have non-offensive religious references in their name, a significant departure from the username policy.

So I fail to see the compelling argument for creating all these false positives. Martijn Hoekstra said on my talk page that it could help catch names such as "SUPERSUPERSUPERSUPERSUPER". Catch them and do what with them? Insta-block them with no support from the username policy? Why do you see names like that as such a problem and what are you trying to accomplish? rspεεr (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

NameWatcherBot

Is the bot still working? I haven't seen a report since yesterday. I mean, maybe we're getting lucky, but it seems odd. TN‑X-Man 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Spamusername

Must the above template have such a harsh tone? It discourages new contributors who probably accidentally fell foul of policy but may have something good to contribute in future. Any consensus to make it a bit kinder and remove account creation blocked by default for these blocks? GDonato (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this?

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because it has been identified as an account used for promotion of a company or group, with a username that implies that this has been done by that company or group. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

This kind of activity is considered spamming and forbidden by policies, and also violates our username policy. However, if you feel that there has been a mistake in your blocking, please appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} on your user talk page or email the administrator who blocked you. Your reason should include your response to this issue.

Sound a bit nicer? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 16:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That "while" is out of place and awkward. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I meant to construct it differently but that changed sometime around "activity". Fixed. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 21:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, looks great, I've been bold and updated the template, GDonato (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets discuss it, then block later only if needed

This is not really working. See Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over. These users are supposed to be given a chance to change their name, or to have a discussion leading to a decision their name is okay. But that is not what is happening.

People are leaving a note on their page and never coming back. The name is removed from UAA, time passes, more time passes, and the username issue is not addressed. There are 2,316 names in this category and it is only getting larger.

I suggest that people not simply drop a templated message on peoples page and forget. Discussion is a great idea, but dropping a template on a page and not coming back is a far cry from discussion.

Just from the first page I can see user:Antichrist junior, user:Accelmarketing and user:Allahistheonetruegod and several more. These names are months old and have never been addressed.

If a name is inappropriate and they do not respond to discussion then they need to be blocked. If a name is clearly inappropriate like "Allahistheonetruegod" then discussion after a block is probably a better idea.

Discussion is a wonderful thing, but this wholesale templating an moving on is not discussion and it is harmful in that it dumps these usernames into a giant inbox that nobody is using. There are a few specific people I see making many of these abandoned reports, I will not name them here but click on a few and you will see.

Other people's opinions? Chillum 23:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not a regular at UAA, but there seem to be several issues:

• Which templates put users in that category? I see {{Uw-username}}, but are there others?
• How are the templates used? Above suggests they might be an outcome of a UAA report, but it seems to me they are most often dropped as a note in cases of problematic user names to encourage people to change their names themselves as an alternative to a report. (this mean that this discussion may not reach all interested parties). I don't see a problem per se in a note that flags a problem without immediate call for action. We have many such tags in different namespaces. If people use it incorrectly either for names that are not a problem at all or in cases that are blatantly inappropriate one should talk to them, though. Still nobody 'has' to flag user names at all, and if people do use above tag that is already something.
• What happens afterwards? Several things that might happen are: (i) editors actually ask for a name change, in which case the user and talk page are renamed, but unfortunately this may mean that the tag simply remains in place and we keep it in the category. An example is User talk:Travuser. (ii) someone else come along sees the situation including possible lack of reply and asks for a block. Also in this case the cat seems to remain in a place till the talk page is deleted, as e.g. now in User talk:Antichrist junior (iii) editor points out that there might not be a big problem. Others weigh in or not. In this case we lack a mode to conclude the discussion and either clear the name or block the account.
• And if nothing happens at all? As already indicated, people have a general idea that they can apply a flag without necessarily being personally responsible for following up. And even if they have watch listed the respective talk page there seem to be quite a few cases where there aren't any further edits and the issue sinks into oblivion, which might even be fine for moderately silly throw-away accounts. What is missing is an even rudimentary process that tracks these flags to allow for following-up systematically.

In summary, I don't see a problem with using the template and the category in principle, but there aren't any good mechanisms that help to handle them. At the very least we should have the usual dated categories and assure that the category is removed from accounts that already have been blocked or renamed.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is so much the category growing. The issue is primarily that people are calling something "discussion with a user" when it is in fact more often "leave a template and never come back". I think if someone does not want to actually discuss a name then it should either be just blocked, or accepted. Chillum 14:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, and to some extent, in which case you will probably need to talk to interested parties. But context and better data are needed, to understand to what extent there is actually follow-up needed and whether to call this a failure and what can be done to improve the situation. I looked at a random sample of 25, actually the first in the category starting with E. No tagger seems to be predominantly present, (but sorry for including an offensive one.) The results are not representative sine still small and not really random, but interesting. Only two editors (8%) got blocked, one of which should have been reported immediately to UAA. An impressive 72% (18) stopped editing shortly after the note or never did so in the first place. In two cases (8%) the editor retired or asked for a rename after discussion and 12% (3) remain unresolved with the editor continuing to edit for some time. With respect to discussion, 6 editors reacted to the note and in three cases there wasn't any follow-up from the tagger or anybody else.

This indicates to me rather a successful and cost-effective way of discouraging users to edit with their user name. But maybe you consider moderately problematic but dormant or abandoned accounts such as user:Accelmarketing an actual problem? Anyways, I think there should be a bot to sort into dated categories and assure that the category is removed from accounts that already have been blocked or renamed.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot misses

Perhaps the bot could be improved to detect. Inc, LLC, Corporation for promotional usernames. I hope I've been some help in going through the last several thousand usernames. ~.^ --Smallman12q (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The fine line between spam and fan

When it comes to companies, political groups,, that sort of thing,, it seems pretty obvious that using the organization's name as a username is a violation of username policy. Where it gets a little gray for me is when somebody comes along and creates an article about some no-name band, the article is speedy deleted, and then they get reported here because their username is the same as the band. If the band is some no-name teenage basement band, and the article is gone, is there really a problem anymore? Or, more to the point, does it serve any real purpose to block the account? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Organization and group names are problematic on many levels. Let's take the example of a fan of a band, who chooses the band's name as their username. They aren't breaking WP:COI. But their username is still promotional or has the potential to be promotional. There's also the issue that their name is misleading: it sounds like they ARE the band, rather than fans. I think if the band is a serious band, i.e. has gigs and is trying to get their music out there, then these issues continue to be a problem after the article is deleted. Of course, if a band is just something the user's buddy in school does and is totally amateur, there isn't a problem. And sometimes this whole issue gets close to the real name thing: people often use their real name as the name of a business or a musical group, and yet users should be allowed to use their real name while editing if they choose to. Mangojuice^talk 15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback on this Mango. Interestingly, this has just come up again. User:Megsmorrison created Megs Morrison, which I nommed for a speedy as it was blatant advertising. The name is apparently the name of the main character in a series of children's books. Now, you may note that my own username is based on a fictional character, Zaphod Beeblebrox, so I haven't reported this name here. Seems like if they keep spamming, they'll end up getting blocked for that, and the name isn't overtly promotional. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Idiot

What's wrong with using "idiot" in your username? --98.162.148.46 (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC) (Call me by IP address, not "anon".)

Name calling isn't nice. Chillum 15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A username like "YouIdiot" or "ShutupIdiot" would be too offensive to edit harmoniously. But idiot can be used in lots of usernames that aren't inappropriate... "Idiotbox" or "IdiotaticExpression" or "Vidiot" would all be perfectly fine. Even swear words aren't universally unacceptable as username substrings. Mangojuice^talk 15:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"IdiotaticExpression"? Never heard that one. LOL. I agree with your reasoning and don't see a problem in those cases except when it is insulting someone as in your first examples. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot usernames: an issue with our approach

My understanding is that we block bot usernames as inappropriate usernames, unless there is evidence in place that the account is really a bot, and has approval. I think this approach is wrong, because it will inevitably interfere with the proper creation and running of bots. I do believe that a new user choosing a name that makes them sound like a bot is making a poor choice, and should be encouraged to change username. However, I think we have a general problem with blocking bot accounts because: (1) If the wrong settings are used, we might inadvertently block the whole toolserver, (2) Bots do not always need approval: note from the WP:Bot policy: In addition, any bot or automated editing process that affects only the operators' user and talk pages (or subpages thereof), and which are not otherwise disruptive, may be run without prior approval. (3) Even proper Bots may exist for some period of time without official approval. And in the end, (4) a user having "bot" in their username when they aren't a bot just isn't a big problem for anyone. It has the potential to be a problem if the user acts as if they are a bot, but that should be rare and there's always WP:RFCN for such cases. (To my mind, a user with "bot" in their name that includes a note on their user page saying they aren't a bot, ought to be allowed to keep the username.) Mangojuice^talk 15:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• You may have something there. I'm not sure about blocking the whole toolserver, that probably would have happened by now if it were an issue, but as a non-admin I'm not really up on that sort of thing. But it does take a lot of names off the table that could be used otherwise. Even User:I'm not a bot would be blockable under the policy as it now stands, which seems a bit absurd. This seems like a case of a policy created with good intentions that doesn't really do much good in actual practice. However, if it's going to be changed I think a venue with a wider audience is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Replying to the bot

The practice of replying to the bot, saying things like "not a blatant violation" or "seems to be a false positive", is getting irritating. It's hardly surprising that the bot creates false positives. It's certainly not something that needs to be discussed every time it happens. The thing to do is to remove the false positives, not to reply to them. The bot can't understand the reply and other viewers of UAA don't need the obvious pointed out.

Sorry for the bit of a rant. rspεεr (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have noticed this too. It doesn't bother me as much as it does Rspeer, but it does strike me as a bit silly to have a conversation with an automated process that is not going to reply to remarks. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• On the other hand, the main reason the bot is replied to is because it has reported someone who hasn't actually made any edits yet. Maybe a software fix is in order? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The individual blacklist entries can be set to only report once a user has edited. IMO, this should be used for almost all things we check for; I frequently go into the blacklist and add "WAIT_TILL_EDIT" to a lot of the entries but it's been a while. Mangojuice^talk 14:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiad

I noticed there's a Wikipedia ad for WP:UAA; you can see it here: File:Qxz-ad123.gif. Personally, I would really like to have that ad removed from rotation. I've felt for a long time that Twinkle and other automated tools should not have included username reporting features; users should not be encouraged to report usernames, because they will often have poor judgment about what is inappropriate. It's fine to make mistakes in other venues like AFD or AIV but here, there's a major potential for biting the newcomers. I'm not sure what has to be done to remove the ad, it looks like we might have to get the image deleted. Mangojuice^talk 14:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Created articles and username match

This might not be feasible, but I would think that a bot could also report usernames to UAA those who exactly (or near-exactly) match an article that they recently created (say, for instance, within a 20-minute timeframe). This would save on the manual reporting of usernames who match company articles they have very recintly created to UAA. However, I would forsee a problem of such a bot reporting usernames that match non-company articles such as autobiographies. Any thoughts? MuZemike 00:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea and that you should pursue it at WP:BOTR. Sincerely, Skomorokh 19:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Near matches to company names

When a user has only one contribution, an article or a page about a company that's been speedy-deleted as advertising/promotional, and their username is obviously meant to match the company but isn't a copy of the company name, should I indef-block them? Example from today: "Blueplymouth", for the Blue Lan Group based out of Plymouth Mass. Yesterday, I deleted an article from something like User:MRG1995a, where the company was "MRG Associates". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a judgment call. Blueplymouth is probably OK. When I look at reports, I try to gauge how much of a leap it is from the username to the company. If I really have to stretch to make it fit or wouldn't make the association without knowing of the company, I let it go. TNXMan 14:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds about right. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Offering a new bot feature

If people find it useful, I will gladly spend a few hours and program a new feature into the name watcher bot.

The feature is that when it sees the " Wait until the user edits." template is added to a name on the UAA, it would check every so often to see if the user has in fact edited and if so make note of it by the user's report.

Is this the sort of feature people will find useful? If so I can start coding it soon. Chillum 21:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been bold and have pretty much finished this new feature. I am testing it out here: User talk:Chillum/HBC NameWatcherBot testing sandbox. Chillum 00:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes! That is an excellent feature. I've been trying to keep up more with usernames that I tag with {{uaa}}. This sounds like it would work out well. TNXMan 00:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Most definitely. Go for it! Malinaccier (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be helpful. bibliomaniac15 01:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have developed this feature, we just need to wait for the current operator to come back and update. Chillum 18:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello?

Is anyone there? No one has been looking at the Usernames that have been reported. --Abce2 (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

All at the moment have either been blocked or reviewed. --Smashville^talk 01:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Most reports are handled within a matter of minutes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Clerks?

It seems that there is constantly a backlog here. Perhaps we could install clerks to separate violations from non-violations, ie. removing the incorrect reports so admins don't have to? Ceranllama chat post 01:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I feel that we handle reports pretty quickly. The most obvious violations are blocked almost immediately and the names that need more discussion are also handled pretty fast. As I type this, all of the reports listed have been reviewed except for one (which, as soon as I finish here, I'll take a look at). It would be interesting, though, to compare our response time here with that of other noticeboards (SPI, CSD, etc) TNXMan 14:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed, to be honest. As Tnxman307 mentioned, most reports are handled within a few minutes. Also, the backlog limit isn't all that high. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Plus, clerks will not necessarily have the experience level or the policy knowledge that admins have in order to judge whether reports are violations or not. Malinaccier (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Also knowledgeable editors who are not admins already mark non-blatants as such by 'discussing with user', etc. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nja247 - is it really appropriate for non-admins to help out here? If so, why? The name of this project implies that reported usernames will get administrator attention. Why let non-admins with less experience than many of the reporting editors kick reports off the page?    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   02:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to follow up on the timeliness comment above, as of right now [16] there is an 10 hour untouched backlog on UAA.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   06:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate for non-admins to help here (actually, I was involved here long before I became an admin). There are several things that can be done that do not require a admin flag - removing false positives, commenting on reports, etc. There is (or should be) a tacit understanding that any borderline cases should be left for an admin to review. TNXMan 13:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hasty blockings

I always try to block only the most blatant violations but even so I receive a few emails apologizing and requesting a username change... is the 'blocking on sight' clause perhaps too harsh? It seems that we even give vandals more leeway than those with the wrong username. Thoughts? -- Mentifisto 13:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I receive those quite a few of those, as well. If they agree to change their username, then you can just unblock them per AGF. On a related note, there's a discussion regarding promotional usernames at WT:U. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Trying to get a final answer...

FYI, I have attempted to start discussion about this page at WP:AN#Username blocks - can we clear this up once and for all?! —Wknight94 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, currently this is discussed most actively at the policy talk page. henrik•talk 19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

Are we losing our nerve around here? User:Willking1979 and I both reported User:Spinnerpub as an actively promotional name - adding links to the company's publications and website to two articles. The comment from User:filelakeshoe is that UAA is "for blatant violations". So my question: what is more blatant than this? – ukexpat (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed - blocked my Orangemike, common sense prevails. – ukexpat (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well we're having discussions at WT:U regarding what constitutes a spammy name vs. a non-spammy name who makes too many spam edits. At this name noticeboard, I shouldn't even have to look at the edits. Spinnerpub is a good example of a name that should be allowed (although the account was rightly blocked for spammy edits), so it should have been reported to WP:AIV and/or WP:COIN for bad edits. Feel free to weigh in at WT:U. Wknight94 ^talk 15:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; if I were in a discussion with "Spinnerpub", I would have never suspected that it's a promotional account. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"SpinnerPublications" would be clearly promotional but when I first saw this discussion my first thought was that it was adding links to some kind of Public House. At most I'd think "Spinnerpub" to be borderline, "SpinnerPub" would probably cross the line. Dan D. Ric (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So we have UAA for reporting spammy names, but they are not an issue unless they make spammy edits. But when they do we have to report them at AIV not at UAA? Do I have that right? So why even have UAA for reporting spammy names in the first place? Also, the difference between Spinnerpub and Spinnerpublications is so minimal that it should make no difference and upper case vs lower case "P", seriously?. – ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I would say, yes. UAA's original purpose, I believe, was for blatantly bad names like User:Wknightisaracist and User:Fuck Bitch Bastard Ass-whole Vandal (and yes, those are both real). It's evolved somehow into a spam hunt. From recent discussion at WT:U, this noticeboard is still okay for obvious spam names like User:Hotel and Resort Management Corporation. And yes, AIV was supposed to be for serial vandalizers and spammers. If you get flack there, it's because they haven't seen many spam reports there in a while, because all the spam reports have been coming to this name noticeboard instead. The reason for the distinction - IMHO anyway - is that names reported here don't necessarily need a warning. They need to change their names or be blocked because they violate WP:U - and will always violate WP:U unless the name changes. Names that are less spammy but where the accounts are engaging in spam edits need to be given the full set of warnings before blocking. They don't violate WP:U so they have a chance to change their behavior and edit with that same name if they so choose. Clear as mud? Wknight94 ^talk 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. If User:Spinnerpub popped up on the new user log with no edits, I daresay your spam alarm would not have gone off, thus it is not a matter for UAA which is a noticeboard for inappropriate usernames, not inappropriate edits. The reason we wait for them to edit is because spam usernames are only problematic if the user is editing, because this would open up the floodgates to company names appearing in talkspace/userspace. - filelakeshoe 20:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So what you're basically saying is that for a spam username to be listed here, it should include something such as "Inc.", "Company", "Group", "™", etc.... - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 21:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds about right. The most important consideration, I've heard, is that someone whose name is User:Hotel and Resort Management Corporation would be signing that name to every talk page comment they ever make. They would flood Wikipedia with their name by just talking. The other consideration I've heard to a lesser extent is that of role accounts. An account is supposed to be associated with a single individual. Accounts named after companies make people fear that the account is being used by multiple people. That concern is pretty archaic though - the page I linked was started in 2003. I don't hear people screaming about that very often anymore. Wknight94 ^talk 22:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say we still don't really like role accounts. But given how obscure the rule against role accounts is, and the relative lack of damage they do, it's not a situation that requires hastily blocking anyone. rspεεr (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly - this noticeboard is for really extremely blatant violations of the username policy which need instantly blocking. Just because a user questionably violates a policy doesn't mean they're instantly blocked without warning or discussion - to do so violates WP:AGF and makes us seem militantly bureaucratic and unwelcoming. Vandals, for instance, get 4 warnings before they're blocked. If User:Spinnerpub started editing constructively his name would not be an issue, but User:Hotel and Resort Management Corporation would be, as explained above. There's your distinction. - filelakeshoe 00:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Really extremely? I don't know about that. I would say this noticeboard is for obvious violations. The case of User:Spinnerpub is an obvious violation, check out this pub's only contributions to Wikipedia, SPAM, just like the username itself. When the username itself is promotional then it is a username issue. Yes we are losing our nerve around here. I would have blocked that name if Orangemike had not. Since when are we soft on spam? Chillum 00:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also Filelakeshoe, vandals do not get 4 warnings if that is all they are doing. From WP:BLOCK: "accounts used primarily for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning". Same goes for spammers as far as this admin is concerned. If Spinnerpub wanted to start editing constructively, he would have to do so under a different username(as I would have of course used a soft block and explained how to come back). We disallow this sort of thing all day long, every day. Chillum 00:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The main problem, in my opinion is that username "Spinnerpub" itself isn't blatantly promotional. If you saw the phrase spinnerpub, would you immediately think of a company called Spinner Publications? The whole point of UAA is to report usernames that are promotional, disruptive, etc. If you can't tell from the username which company or group it is promoting, it's not a blatant violation. UAA is for reporting usernames, not spam edits. The phrase "Spinnerpub" does not blatantly advertise the company. In fact, I couldn't tell why it was promotional until I looked at its contributions and discovered that a company called Spinner Publications existed. Of course, spinnerpub could still be blocked for spammy edits, but at AIV, not here. ƒingers^on_Roids 01:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And imo spinnerpub's few spammy edits were not enough to warrant an insta-block (spamblocks are hardblocks as well, i might add) without at least one warning beforehand. It's easier to spot obvious vandal only accounts who make 20 obvious vandalism edits in a minute, and obvious sockpuppets, and I can justify blocking those straight away because it is so blatantly obvious those accounts are never going to edit constructively, and I can't say that of an account which adds a few bad external links (a far more innocent mistake than adding "FUCK YOUR MOM" at the top of 10 articles). WP:AGF. - filelakeshoe 01:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Where did blatant enter into this process? There is no clause in WP:U that mentions that violations must be blatant, although that seems to be the most common Admin reason for rejecting a UAA report. The word "clearly" is used a twice, but not well defined. My point has been, and will continue to be that for a username to qualify as promotional the username doesn't have to be obvious like BuyMyABCXYZ, the username can be something benign like Teamsamson888 or Torontoima two of the recent reports I have made. While neither of those names is as blatant as "Buymy..." when you look at the articles they are creating (TeamSamson888 creating an article which was CSD'd as A7 for a racing team by the same name - and - Torontoima for "Toronto Independent Music Awards") it becomes clear that they are being used for promotional purposes. Why ignore the fact that their name, along with the articles they are spamming, make it clear that they are promotional? JCutter (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel like you answered your own question -- the problem is what the account is being used for. Your objection is not the name of the account, it's the edits it's making. A username block makes no sense, sends the wrong message about what they're being blocked for, and generally just encourages them to go underground and make the same edits. You want to use the spam warning process. rspεεr (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Blatant has always been a part of the UAA process. From the noticeboard's header:

• When you report a name here, you are asserting that the user with that name needs to be immediately blocked. Your report must explain what is problematic about the username, as not all violations of the username policy require blocks.
• For ordinary violations of the username policy, do not use this page. Instead, warn the user and ask them to change their name, possibly using the {{uw-username}} template.

And from WP:U:

Usernames which are obviously inappropriate should be reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, along with an explanation of the issue, and can be blocked on sight by any administrator.

Usernames which are not obviously inappropriate, but which may fit the criteria listed above should not be immediately blocked.

Hope that clarifies. - filelakeshoe 10:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I have a few comments, and I think the my confusion may stem from inconsistant wording as well as inconsistant interpretation by various admins.

• Respectfully, to avoid this confusion, might it make sense to either:

• Modify WP:U to include the word "blatant" (or is the feeling that "obviously" = "blatant")
• Modify the noticeboard header to include some sort of wording like "blatant", "obvious", or "overt" -- instead of just comparing the asserted violation to an "ordinary" violation in the second sentence.

• Also, would you agree that Solarmer and Tropic Knight (both of which I reported and both of which were immediately blocked) actually should not have been blocked? Clearly their names alone aren't "blatant" - but their names matched the first articles they created which were spam (which is why I reported them).

I fully understand that not all admins will react the same to any given situation, but this leads to confusion among editors when we report similar situaitons and get dramatically different responses. I know that I am not the first editor who has questioned "what do you mean it's not blatant", and I think that some clarification in the policies or noticeboard might help. Thanks. JCutter (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the current backlog of 'promotional' names, I would say there is a divide between those who report and those who block the usernames. I'm sort of a strict constructionist here. I see a half dozen usernames X that are creating articles also named X. I also don't see any usernames that would be promotional by simply looking at the name. Are we really to look at edits to verify if the name is promotional? If a username is offensive, I ignore the 'wait until the user edits' bit. Law _{type! snype?} 02:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits

It seems the "wait until the user edits" template is used very frequently... which essentially indicates that the decision is going to be based on edits, not anything else. So isn't this redundant to AIV which handles cases just on the edits made? Don't they all ultimately be decided like that? -- Mentifisto 08:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is useful for determining if a username is promotional. Law _{type! snype?} 01:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping for someone as experienced as Mentifesto would point that out. Per my comments immediately above here (as JCutter before my name changed), if need to "wait" for the user to edit to see if their name is spammy, then we can certainly use the combination of their name + the edits they have made to decide that the spam is blatant / obvious.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   09:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Earlier there was a mention of a bot that would move those names marked with a {{uaa|w}} to some sort of holding pen and then move them back to the noticeboard once the account edits. I haven't heard any more info on it, however. I think it would be a pretty good solution. TNXMan 11:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, isn't it already doing that? Under some of the bot reported ones, it says "This report was delayed until the user edited.", which I assumes means it moved the report back after the user edited.ƒingers^on_Roids 02:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

See, I thought there were two kinds. There are 1) the reports that the bot waits to post until there is an edit and 2) reports that bot posts, recognizes later as being tagged with {{uaa|w}}, removes, and then puts back once the user does indeed edit. Although, I may have misunderstood Chillum's post. TNXMan 02:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The use of that template has evolved to cope with the fact that spam edits are reported here. It wasn't created because spam edits should be posted here. That's how I see it, anyway. It shouldn't really be here, but until people stop reporting spammers (rather than simply spam-usernames) here, it's necessary... Ale_Jrb^talk 09:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Company names

It seems that many users get blocked because the name is equal to a company name. It seems this is not actually against policy. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You may find the discussion at this page of interest. A few editors and I were discussing this same issue. TNXMan 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Some are a stretch

I know I am not an administraotr however I have been watching this board for a while and I have noticed a trend as of late that we seem to be finding more creative reasons why a username isn't a good one. For the most part I have agreed that some usernames are not appropriate but everyonce in a while someone casts a good argument for deleting one on what I would consider to be an otherwise good name. For example there is one on here now that appears to be a name but contains bich so it popped up on the radar and another that seems to mimic jack bauer. In regards to that one the editor that submitted it seems to think that people will think that the user condones the use of torture and although they might I think this one is a stretch. There are A LOT of other user names in WP that I would think would be far more offensive than that such as Thefeargod (could offend people who are religious) or Hydrogen iodide (because it could be associated with illegal drug use or production). Which is to say that I don't agree with eliminating them either but I wanted to present them as examples. Even mine could be offensive because it starts with what would appear to be a bodily fluid (bit its pronounced koom). I just think that we should be wary of what we say is an inappropriate username and assume good faith or we may find ourselves on a slippery slope.--Kumioko (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick point that the our bot reported the username with "bich". While the name-watcher bot generally does a very good job, it does occasionally report false positives. As for the report concerning Jauerback, well, I've left a note about that. I'm glad you've taken an interest and would point out that WT:U is also a good place to discuss the username policy. TNXMan 11:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Hess 46

As has been made clear to this user, this is not an acceptable user name and therefore must be changed, seeing as the user was notified in May 2008 and has not changed the name as well as the fact that it has not made any edits then I don't feel the user was planning to take this seriously, I fell his account should be terminated for these reasons. 95jb14 (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC), a member of the CVU.

Dont want to get my ear chewed here but is there a possibility, for instance, that a man could be named both Rudolf and Hess without any ill will? I understand the concern clearly but it is misguided or over the mark in this case. Even Barak Obama is called Hussein... I don't see words like Nazi or Jew in that username that is all I am saying. Even Santa's reindeer is called Rudolf... You should reinstate that username to put yourself above any prejudicial concern (pre-judge-ish-you). ~ R.T.G 18:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate what your saying but the person has been warned and whether intentional or not they are named after Adolf Hitler's Deputy in the Nazi Party, there will be many people who will take offence to this. I do not mean to be brash but the person hasn't even made one edit, he has no user page and has made no apparent effort to improve or ammend his name and yet has he been punished after over a year? Action needs to be taken, as far as I am concerned. 95jb14 (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC), a member of the CVU.

The account was created a year ago and never used. It can be safely ignored. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a fair solution, though if it does the we will have to get in contact. Should it be removed from the UAA Page then? 95jb14 (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC), a member of the CVU.

I appreciate the username watching and am wain to debate the credit/discredit of the user (as nothing to debate anyway). But, when I looked through the names I saw a problem with Rudolf Hess and Jack Bauer. Hess, granted it is purley POV on what weight to give his personality (for me those nazi's are rarely seen and never heard and the individual names Rudolf and Hess obscure him quite sufficient). Jack Bauer then... how can you use a fictional character to devalue an individuals possible real name without some concern that the party intends to emulate or pursue the character...? I just think it is a slight overstretch. If you gathered people into groups of 100 you would gather more than 60, 000, 000 just to count all the people still living that have names. Is Hess, namesake of a Nobel Laureate, signifigant to precede all these people. No way. Jack Bauer? Not a chance. ~ R.T.G 20:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would just point out that I am far from regularly contributing to username policy. Persons who are long enough dead or indeed have never been alive should forfeit the privelidge of being mistaken for a current specific living human just to make solid sense. Of course that is not related to the process involved when a person is feigning themselves off to be the actual person. It's sort of pie in the sky but I'd hate to think that a genuine Jack Bauer or Rudolf Hess was stopped from identifying themselves like that. If I thought you were anything but polite and reasonable I'd be jumping but I doubt that anyone is being morally wronged or anything. I do suspect that a genuine Jack or Rudolf would have found their way but I thinkn the onus should be on Jack to behave a certain way (not to show strong interests in 24:Jack Bauer) rather than to wear the infected armband. ~ R.T.G 20:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Soliciting comments

I'll list a few of my indef promotional-username blocks here (not a hardblock, mild block notice) where I think there's consensus, but I'd appreciate anyone's input.

• User:Ulyssesreborn. Text: "Could the latest work by artist Ulysses entitled “Rebirth” be the most expensive piece of art on display in New York City? ... Eager New York art collectors, including actress Cassandra Hepburn, recently waited outside the Chair and the Maiden Gallery in the West Village for the unveiling of famed artist Ulysses’ new work while the small space was packed with a party of enthused onlookers. ... The innovative work by Ulysses is currently being displayed at The Chair and the Maiden Gallery which is located at 19 Christopher Street in New York City. For more information go to: www.chairandthemaiden.com." - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• User:Wimintern. Test: "Since 1996, small and medium businesses, governments and public companies around the globe have turned to World Internet Marketing Inc. for custom, boutique-style services to build their businesses." - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure to be honest. Neither of these, to me, scream "promotion" but can certainly be interpreted that way. Paired with the edits shown it is pretty certain that a level of spammy behavior is evident. I personally have some reservations about the heavy-handed nature in which we deal with "promotional" usernames - it is my belief that the user and his/her edits are promotional, not their username (with some exceptions). That is neither here nor there, though, and current policy forbids user names which appear promotional and these were probably OK blocks. Shereth 20:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The question I ask myself is: suppose someone else (possibly an alt account of theirs) writers a completely neutral article on the topic, which is in no danger of deletion, and then this user takes over most of the editing. What are the odds that this username will be perceived as speaking for the company? If the odds are high, then either it's a problem because they don't speak for the company, or else there's an unsolvable OWNership problem if they do speak for the company. Better for them and everyone else to politely but firmly ask them to change usernames, which is what the block plus "this is often not a reflection on the user" warning does (although I'd favor new warning text that is more specific to this problem, just to make sure they don't misunderstand). - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• User:Intaid. International Aid, Inc.. Text: "Vision: Sustainable health and well being for all. Mission: As followers of Jesus, we collaborate..." - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I reported all three of the above so I agree they should have been blocked.  – ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Counterexample from a few weeks ago: a user named something like "Waverly" wrote an arguably promotional piece about the Waverly Medical Center in Waverly, Iowa (U.S.) Since it was possible to interpret the name as promoting or belong to the town instead of the hospital, I let it slide. - Dank (push to talk) 20:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Company usernames are now a violation of WP:U

They used to be discouraged, but per the June updates to WP:U they are now forbidden, and subject to immediate block. This is a much needed improvement.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   12:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This will alleviate so many things. Do you recommend a softblock to allow the user to choose a nonpromotional name? I'm leaning in that direction. Law _{type! snype?} 12:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Softblock is reasonable... if repeat offender then COIN or SPAM should block with account creation disabled. My 2c.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   12:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Give them a chance and send them to COI if the problem isn't alleviated. Law _{type! snype?} 12:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note, however, that this only applies to explicit company names. Initials or other other abbreviations should be handled at WP:COIN or other appropriate venues. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Blatant Promotion RfC, if anyone wants to chip in. Chillum made a point very similar to yours, Law (which I agree with as well). TNXMan 13:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

←Regarding "June update" ... is there a page somewhere that keeps track of monthly updates to this page? It's not in one of the 3 policy cats tracked at WP:Update (content, enforcement, deletion), but I'll be happy to track this page if you all think the "enforcement" cat fits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:JustinYellow

Just checking ... I softblocked for failing the "squint" test (i.e., you don't have to squint to see the connection to the business Yellowpin, so OWNership issues would inevitably arise). (Also a first-time contributor, also the tone was promotional.) [Adopts Marlon Brando accept] Youz got a problem wid dat? - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do have a problem - I *do not* see the link to the company "yellowpin" or see what is wrong with this username? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah - right, the user contributions were deleted so I cannot see them - but looking at the userpage, he was creating yellowpin - fine, no problem. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say the username JustinYellow is not in violation of the username policy. The word Yellow is a pretty generic name, and doesn't imply a company-owned user, although Yellowpin may have been named after him. Please use a more relevant reason to block the user, like the user's actual contributions, or the content of their user page, but not their username.. --Mysidia (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, there are 4 options, tell me your preference. I used the first option, but I'd prefer the second option. I'm not recommending anything, I'm just listing the different ways that I see this handled.

1. Block with reason {{usernameblock}}, and the warning that's usually associated with that, {{uw-ublock}}, which begins: "This account, JustinYellow, 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."
2. Come up with a new standard warning specifically for this situation, and as long as the warning's clear, I wouldn't mind whether we say the policy is to block per {{usernameblock}} or {{spamusernameblock}};
3. Block with reason {{spamusernameblock}}, and the associated warning, {{spamusernameblock}}, which begins with a big red "X" and: "Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully. Why can't I edit Wikipedia? Because Wikipedia does not allow any form of spam or other promotion ..."
4. Block with reason #3 but give the warning #1 above. - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy with any of these options. They all suggest that the choice of username itself is at issue. There's nothing particularly promotional or in violation of policy about the username "JustinYellow". The user's account should simply be blocked for their spamming activity, without any reference whatsoever to the username policy which is not applicable to this situation. As I see it, the only reason to block the account, is that the offender was logged in under that account while performing the abuse (therefore they own it). It wouldn't matter if they picked a different username. In fact, any future username they pick should be blocked just as quickly, as long as they are spamming, or conducting in the same manner --Mysidia (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, works for me, I'll unblock. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Another word blacklist

See User:Lupin/badwords for another regex list that might be useful as a reference for this filter. (Note that because of its slightly different format, entries cannot be directly cut and pasted to this list.) -- The Anome (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Jackson" filter

I understand why this was placed on the blacklist, but I feel the furor has died down to a large extent. I want to go ahead and remove the regex entirely, but I'd like to get other opinions. Thoughts? TNXMan 20:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Most of the ones I saw were false positives anyway. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done TNXMan 12:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Another "test case" for your perusal

See: User talk:XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO. Now, this may be a mildly annoying username, but it's not actively disruptive or profane. Is there a good reason for this user to be repeatedly questioned and challenged about their name? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Unless it changed back very recently, we no longer block 'confusing' usernames under WP:U; give me a sec to double-check the policy though. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

From WP:UNCONF "In the uncommon case that an otherwise good-faith contributor deliberately ignores requests to change their username, and goes on using a name that other editors agree is too confusing, then that username may be blocked to prevent further disruption. (Though the latter practice is considered somewhat controversial)." Hmmm. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Without aggravating circumstances to show that the user is trying to be obnoxious, disruptive or perhaps duplicitous, haranguing people about a username that is "confusing" is really doing nothing to contribute to the encyclopedia at all and should really, really be avoided. There is a bad precedent of administrators (or other editors) enforcing concerns about potential disruption when what we should really be doing is leaving people alone unless disruption actually happens. Getting people wound up about "this could be disruptive" is every bit as disruptive, itself. Shereth 22:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That username may be annoying to type, but is anyone really going to type that out rather than cut and paste it? The only people it could be really annoying to are those contributing from an early iphone with no cut and paste ;) If the user responds to the first requests satisfactorily there should be no reason for them to be repeatedly challenged about it. Although it may be a good idea for them to leave a message explaining so on their usepage just to avoid constant challenges in future. Mfield (Oi!) 22:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No meaningful worries so far. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have shortened my signature to XO^10. Hopefully that will keep the micromanaging WP moderators at bay.--XO^10 (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Having a sense of humour is always a good thing. Dr.K. logos 23:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Or XO^10+XO^9+XO^8+XO^7+XO^6+XO^5+XO^4+XO^3+XO^2+XO^1+XO :-? Mfield (Oi!) 23:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In all fairness he never claimed he was a geometric series, but we could still abbreviate this using the sum of the series ;) Dr.K. logos 23:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no one else has requested that XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO change his username. Where was this mentioned? The section above was asking about his signature and how he remembers his name, but he wasn't asked to change it. I figured it was worth informing him that his username could cause issues and let him decide what he would do with it. No block was threatened, but, rather, a discussion took place about how it could be an issue. However, when I could tell that he was not interested (for whatever reasons) in changing it to another name that may not cause problems, I didn't worry about it & moved on. :) Shereth, I don't really think it's disruptive to explain this situation to a new user & let him decide what to do with the knowledge. hmwithτ 00:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• It seems a little bitey and overly bureaucratic/Kafka-esque to jam up a users page with messages about their username when it's not causing any actual problems, just imaginary ones like making "it very difficult for other users to find you or your userpages" when all of us know they could just click on the sig to access them. This is the sort of thing that can drive away users, the actual policies and guidelines are complicated enough without making up imaginary ones and asking people to follow them. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Beeblebrox. There is no legitimate reason to care. ⟳ausa کui ^× 06:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Username blocks should not be used for poor behaviour

1. Users should be subject to consistent enforcement of the rules. (as far as that is possible with many admins and many rules)
   

   BAD FAITH users can be blocked for many reasons. I'm not suggesting 'more tolerance' for people making no useful contributions
   

   A bad faith user with an acceptable username gets very much longer to continue bad faith editing than a bad faith editor with an unacceptable username. see point 1 about consistent treatment
   

   Fallout from this is that good faith, but clumsy or bad, newbie editors get caught in instant, permanent, blocks. this is obviously very bad.
   

• Thus: Editors engaged in bad behaviour should be blocked for that bad behaviour. This sends a clear message that the behaviour is the thing that must change, and that an editor coming back doing the same things but under a new username is not welcome.
• Thus: Good faith but clumsy editors get a more welcoming message. You may not have the time to help newbie editors, that's fine. send them to some adoption project.
• You can say the username block policy is not BITEy til you're blue in the face. You need to ask the people blocked under it if they felt bitten.

87.113.86.207 (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Username blocks are for offensive and/or "naughty" usernames (can also be usernames that endorse a company). For bad behaviour, users should be reported here. --Montgomery' 39 (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. You know that. There are still users that get blocked because they *might* cause offence. (No one has actually shown any offence.) There are still users that get blocked because their username *might* be offensive. I know that editors interested in usernames have tried hard over the years to make a system that can be quick when its needed (KILL_ALL_RACISTSLUR, XYZ_LOANS_INC), that allows editors and admins to discuss with the user names that might be problematic (I_VOTE_PARTYX, DONT_VOTE_PARTYX, etc) or to get discussion when they're confused. But still, many people seem to be trawling user creation logs just to find stuff to block. Admins do not (even though policy is clear about this) engage in discussion before blocking - see on the usernames for admin attention and rfcusername pages the number of times people have to be reminded to discus with user first, and then to let user know their name is being discussed.

• TL:DR - I know it's important. I know it needs to be done. Just try to be a bit less hasty, and a bit less bitey. Try to remember that you're often dealing with people who have no clue about WP, and a few of those might make useful contribs if gently guided to the COI and 5 pillar pages. Hurr87.113.86.207durr (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hurr87 has hit the nail on the head. While I think "87.113.86.207 (talk)" is a bad username, and it's reasonable to say under the "misleading username" policy that it needs to be changed, this is mostly a good example of why softblocks are such a dumb idea, which I will keep in mind for the next time someone tries to argue that they're quick and easy and the noobs don't mind.

The appropriate thing to do would have been to ask 87.* nicely to change his username. The block was completely unnecessary. Not to mention the fact that it was apparently a hardblock, which was probably a mistake on Nihonjoe's part. But we still have people with admin bits who think blocking is a good solution to every username problem, and who do not even stop to consider the polite request.

The username policy doesn't need to change. Nihonjoe made a bad block and the username policy already says that he should have tried discussing first. rspεεr (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it was a bad block. The username was very misleading, so it was blocked. All of this has been explained over and over to this editor by multiple admins who agreed with the block. Instead of accepting the explanation, though, the editor has decided to be very pointy. The block was perfectly acceptable under WP:U as a very misleading username (especially when "(talk)" was part of the username). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something here, I see a new user who, from their perspective, has had to jump through hoops just to edit. If I were them I'd probably be quite annoyed. From their perspective, they've made a user account to link their edit history together and then got blocked for trying to do the right thing. Perhaps a bit more compassion is needed? I'm sure that kindly asking them if they'd consider changing their name to one with x's in (87x113...), for the reasons described, would have been a much better start to this user's time at wikipedia. Seraphim♥ 19:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the response templates are the problem. We block any user[name] which might show bad intent, saying that they can just switch usernames if they actually have good intentions. This is a growing problem that some people have spawned. ceranthor 20:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, in a nutshell, I mean that we should just ask usernames that are not blatantly disruptive to change usernames, especially if they are editing constructively. ceranthor 20:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

NihonJoe - please try to move away from accusations of pointyness. You're assuming this is about my name. It is not. MANY users are blocked because they have a name and editors think they might make vandal edits. My point is simple: Don't block users becuase you think they might be vandals, wait until they edit and then block them for being vandals. "We think you might be about to vandalize" gives one of two messages - "be more sneaky when you're trying to damage WP" or "we are just one example of trigger happy editors, you'll be met by over-enthusiatic twinkle users, AfD nominators, rollbakcers, reverters, new-page patrollers. Many wikipedians don't like you even though you have yet to make a single edit." Let me be very clear: Some user names are so blatant ("KILL_ALL_$RACIAL_SLUR") that they do need to be blocked on sight. Hurr87.113.86.207durr (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Second point: Since it has been raised, let's talk about my block. I picked a daft name. I now agree that it was a bad name, and that the name needs to be changed. Put yourself in the position of a new user.

• You read the username policy. Your name is not mentioned anywhere in it.
  
• You create an account. Very quickly you are blocked.
• You read the (copious) text, and try to create a new username. You cannot, because your IP has been blocked.
  
• You use the un-block template and ask for an unblock. You stick try to remain polite, you strict carefully to policy based reasoning.
  
• You ask, at the same time, for someone to add a small line (because policy is descriptive, not proscriptive,) along the lines of "email and IP addresses are not allowable usernames".
  
• You're told that this is the wrong place to ask for policy changes (but you're not asking for policy to change)
  
• because you still don't understand why you've been blocked ("resembles IP address" is not in the text of the policy) you use the unblock template again.
  
• You're told that you're abusing the unblock template, even though this is the only way you can communicate, because your IP is blocked.
  
• Eventually, you sort it all out, you register a new account. You go to the policy pages, as you've been told to do. You make it very clear, using BOLD CAPITALS that you're not having a go at any admins, that you're trying to make general points about policy. You are told that you're "still complaining about the block" or being "pointy".
  
• Policy is descriptive, not proscriptive. Admins have, and will, block people who use things that look like IP addresses for usernames. So, just add that text to the policy. Why is that so hard? (It's hard for me because anons can't edit the page, blocked users can't edit the page, and new editors can't edit the page.) Hurr87.113.86.207durr (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll note that you aren't the only other person discussing things here. Additionally, you keep going over your block (even though you insist it isn't about that). Others have said specifically that they disagreed with the block I made, and I'm disputing their claims. There's already a discussion going on about changing the policy, so perhaps you should focus on that instead of rehashing the same points over and over here. You can find the discussion over here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I keep mentioning it because you keep using words like POINTy. You said I was complaining about my block, when I was suggesting that blocking anyone in the way I was blocked is sub-optimal. Can you see the difference? "Hey, what you did to me sucked, you all suck" is different to "Hey, new users might think this sucks, here's my experience, why don't we do this instead?". I've made it clear that I'm not talking about your particular block of me, but about the practice of instantly permanently blocking users with confusing names. And, again, I don't want to change the policy. I just was a snippet of text changed from "email address are not allowed" to "email and IP addresses are not allowed". See how tiny that is? I politely tell you that I find your attitude hostile. I'm not here with pitchforks calling for you to be de-adminned. (I challenge anyone to find an edit I've made where I've critisiced you (and if they do I'll apologise for it)). I really don't know what I've done to wind you up so much, but for whatever it is: I AM SORRY. Hurr87.113.86.207durr (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• It looks to me like this block was excessive and punitive. A simple apology would go a long way toward smoothing things over here, but it doesn't look like that will be forthcoming. ⟳ausa کui ^× 06:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  Please learn to assume good faith as the last part of your comment does not do that. Hurr87.* is asking for the policy to be changed, and has stated that he understands why he was blocked under the other username, but that he thinks the policy wasn't clear enough regarding misleading usernames which appear to be IP addresses on first glance. The block was well within policy (at least how I read it, and how many others have interpreted it in the past), and while I'm sorry that 87.* was caught up in the whole mess, and I agree that it could have been handled a different way, I don't it was an incorrect block (as I've explained many times now). Many, many, many usernames which appear to be IPs have been blocked on sight without discussion, and I had the (mis)fortune of being the (first?) one to do one on a user who actually read the policy and pointed out an inconsistency in it. Now that's behind both of us (did you even read what Hurr87.* has been posting above?) and we are trying to come up with a rewording of the policy to make it more clear for everyone involved (come join the fun, if you wish). We've put it behind us; why don't you just let things go since the two people involved are past it now? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  I assure you that I have no doubt that you thought you were doing the right thing. As it happens, I don't think the block was a good idea, whether it was within policy or not. It's not a big deal to me but I find the situation rather disappointing. ⟳ausa کui ^× 11:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Draft revision of the policy (crosspost)

UAA participants may be interested in my post at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Draft revision of the policy.

rspεεr (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

porn

• Re the bot that looks for inappropriate words in usernames: some Siamese (Thai language) personal names contain the syllable "porn" innocently. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yep. Hopefully people have the good sense not to try to block them just because a bot matched a pattern. rspεεr (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Are these names too similar?

We have User:Vision Thing and User:Visionthing. Both have been around since March of 2006, with the two-word version being the older username by 3 days (the 19th versus the 22nd). V T has just recently posted a concern about this on the talk page of Vt in May. They don't generally edit the same sorts of articles. LadyofShalott 14:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that our user names are too similar, but I don't know what would be the best way to correct this. -- Vision Thing -- 16:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a User:White Cat and a User:WhiteCat, and they have what amounts to hatnotes on their userpages. Soon we will have User:Wordsmith and User:The Wordsmith as well, thanks to WP:CHU/U. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is nothing to be done here. The accounts are both 3 years old, have both been at least somewhat active over the 3 years, and don't seem to have any significant amount of overlap in terms of where they edit. If one or the other would be willing to undergo a namechange, that would help alleviate the problems, but there is no way we could force a namechange on either. Hatnotes are a possibility, as well, but again I don't think there is anything that must be done. Shereth 16:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks all for replying. LadyofShalott 17:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Politically biased bot?

Why does the bot flag 'communism?' Are all political affiliations flagged? Is 'aristocracy' on the bot's list as well? I'm not seeing the possible username vio. Law _{type! snype?} 21:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it might have something to do with the negative connotations that come with the term in the US, ie. calling someone a communist pig or commie scum. Still, it does appear a little .. skewed, that the bot is flagging the word "communism" while leaving other forms of government out .. Shereth 21:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That would mean that 'pig' or 'scum' should be flagged as the derogatory terms, right? Thinking globally, this flag needs to be removed. Law _{type! snype?} 22:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to removing it. Shereth 22:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Belated reply: It might have something to do with the "wikipedia is communism" meme that has been taken up by various vandals throughout time, rather than any bias against communism itself. Did it get removed from the blacklist? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It would appear it's still on the blacklist after all. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Also note that there's a difference between automatically reporting a username for administrator inspection and automatically blocking the user. If the latter we going on, there'd be a serious problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Promotional username = person's name?

What is the general policy for a promotional username which may also be the person's name? For example, Jspeters (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is currently being used to promote J.S. Peters Machinery Sales and jspetersmach.com. My initial instinct was that the account should be blocked, but I did not report it (although someone else later did) because it appears to be the person's name. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Behavior is more important in those cases than the username itself. Consider these three scenarios:

• "Jspeters" is promoting "J.S. Peters Machinery Sales". Obvious WP:U violation in addition to being a promotional account, user is blocked.
• "Jspeters" is making typo corrections to Earth. No violation.
• "Innocuous name #4" is promoting "J.S. Peters Machinery Sales". Obvious promotional account, user is blocked.

A name in and of itself is a cause for mild concern, but not actionable until the contributions show bad faith edits. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Also note a version of this same question I asked at WT:U not long ago that kind of ended up without any solid agreement one way or another. Shereth 19:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just be grateful the user isn't the (real life person, real name) "Wayne Kerr", who makes electronic equipment. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's the person's name, it's not a promotional username. The username policy explicitly allows editing under your own name. That doesn't mean they can make any edits they want, it just means you should deal with the promotion without invoking the username policy. rspεεr (talk) 06:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hard block or soft block

What is the policy between using hard blocks and soft blocks for spam usernames? Triplestop x3 22:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What I do: If they're apparently editing under a promotional name just because they're clueless, I softblock them with {{uw-softerblock}} as the reason. This is for actually promotional names, mind you, not "their edits are promotional and they have a name". If they're spamming and hoping they get away with it, I click the "spamblock" link, to hardblock them with {{Spamusername}} as the reason. If the username only hints at a group, organization, or company, I don't block. I leave a warning about the conflict of interest policy, with a suggestion that they should change their username. rspεεr (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is making that distinction between the merely clueless and the actively promotional. You are more charitable than I in these matters; I feel that if an account with a name like User:SallyAtFredCoPR is writing about FredCo, that spamusername applies and should be used immediately. I perceive you and some other UAA regulars as feeling that this is not in and of itself proof of intention to commit "public relations"; i.e., to spam/promote/advertise/"raise our profile". --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think most people get the message with the soft block. Evil saltine (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment moved from project page

See WP:ANI for users who use the names of Presidents. User:Barack Obama - blocked
User:Governor Mark Sanford - blocked
User:Oscar Arias - not blocked. He is the President of Costa Rica seen here Oscar Arias
User:Oarias - not blocked. He is the sock of User:Oscar Arias, same articles, user page redirected to the other User:Jon Corzine - not blocke. Governor of New Jersey's name.

Let's treat all the same. Unblock all or block all. If they are blocked, don't get nasty, just tell them the username policy. Acme Plumbing (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends on several things. User:Barack Obama was an attack account that vandalised the Barack Obama article. User:Governor Mark Sanford clearly refers to a specific person. When the account User:Oscar Arias was created there was no article about Óscar Arias. If a user has the name of a notable person and the edits suggest they may be that person, maybe the account should be blocked until the user's identity can be verified, and username change would probably be appropriate if it isn't the same person. If the edits are unrelated, and when the user is notified of the situation they make it clear from the user page and user talk page that there is no connection, I think the username would be acceptable (with a few exceptions, such as where the username appears to have been created to intentionally confuse, offend or disrupt).

In my opinion it is unlikely that anyone would be misled by the name User:Oscar Arias, particularly when the user page is in Category:Wikipedians in Ohio – and impersonation more likely to cause problems when a non-notable person is impersonated by a disruptive user. Obviously other users and administrators have their own opinions and there is no consistency – User:Rihannah was blocked presumably for having the same pronunciation as Rihanna, Rhianna or possibly User:Riana, but other accounts where the name is identical to a BLP article have never been blocked. snigbrook (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick, let's block User:Peter_jackson or maybe I mean Peter Jackson or was it Peter Jackson --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Holding pen bot update

Does anyone have any comment on or objection to having the namewatcherbot remove usernames from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/holding pen, that are subsequently blocked, in the same way that the bot removes names from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention? --Stephen 04:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if it did, and it could extend reports for them if they do subsequently make edits as well. Mind you, I've never seen a large amount of names in this section. Not an unmanageable quantity anyway, but nevertheless helpful it would be. – B.hotep •talk• 07:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The regulars, including me, already do this. I don't think there's enough usernames, there's never a backlog in the holding pen. So this doesn't sound necessary. ceranthor 15:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Clean up of Cat:Concern Over Usernames

I have been out of UAA work for a while so please excuse if this has been already discussed. Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over is way overloaded, with (as of this writing) more than 1200 entries! Many of those editors have been warned several months ago and have never been back to post or to respond (inactive accounts). Should we block the most blatant ones? Any other easy way to clean the backlog? -- Alexf^(talk) 14:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If someone feels compelled to comb through them and find the blatant ones to block, all the more power to them - but given the size of the backlog it translates into lots of work for little benefit. I would suggest a request be made at WP:BOTREQ (I would do it myself if I had more time) for a bot to go through the category and remove the ones that are stale (no edits in > 60 days, perhaps). This should help pare down the backlog and what remains should be much simpler for a human editor to go through and determine if a block is necessary. Shereth 14:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Given that I have some free time, and I must be bored, I'll do a few. If 60+ days is a good limit, I'll block anybody that has not answered since for that long. When a bot becomes available, this would then be done on a regular basis. If anybody has a different opinion, or thinks 60+ days is too much/not enough, please say so. If any editor complains for being blocked, considering they have been inactive for more than 60 days, it should be a good thing to wake them up. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I blocked a few old ones, then realized the cat is still there. Went to look at Category talk:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over (should have done in the first place) and see a bot request was already made as there's no easy way to clean up the Cat. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually my whole point was to use a bot to simply un-categorize old ones so that no one would have to expend the wasted effort of blocking old accounts unlikely to be used. In any event, a bot should also perform cleanup of the category based on editors who have been blocked. Shereth 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone fill me in on what the point is of blocking inactive accounts... especially when the problem wasn't serious enough to block the first time? rspεεr (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If there wasn't enough concern they wouldn't have been on the list to begin with. Their contributions were to be measured as evidence to confirm or deny. They either left and wont come back after anything potential was happened (which means that a block was warranted) or they changed names (so a block is warranted to prevent socking). Either way, a block is warranted. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If a user hasn't responded to one of these messages it could be because the user hasn't logged in since receiving it, this doesn't mean that they have created a new account. Also there are a few names in the category where the concern appears to be mistaken, for example Qwertbvcxz (no problem with apparently random names unless they are particularly long or confusing), BlackburnCorporationPark (not an organisation, maybe added by a bot because it contains the word "corporation"), and GamingAddict69 (user linked to a Youtube page with the same name, and this was mistaken for a company website). snigbrook (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the second one is probably Soap (Corporation Park, Blackburn, which is an entity that can be soaped), and the third one is used for Soap as the only thing is a promotion of a youtube page. Both should be dealt with and should not be shrugged off. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

They appear to be acceptable according to the username policy. The second has not edited, and is no more promotional than RegentsPark, and the third appears to be just a user who uses the same name on other websites so the edits may be a problem but not the username. snigbrook (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Acceptable under WP:U? Since when? WP:ORGNAME still exists regardless if you want to think it doesn't. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I know it exists, and if there is a clear indication that an account represents an organisation or its username is chosen for promotional purposes it should be blocked – it's unclear why some accounts are blocked and others are warned – however anything that is not clearly disallowed should be discussed at WP:RFCN. snigbrook (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Relaxed enforcement in some cases is not a justification for more relaxed enforcement. Instead, it should be a sign that there should be no relaxed enforcement. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

ORGNAME explicitly says nothing about enforcement. It's a recommendation for new users. I quote: "Note to username patrollers and administrators: This section is aimed at new users. It does not make recommendations about how to enforce the username policy; that section is below." As with everything, you enforce the username policy with common sense, not by applying rigid if-then rules. rspεεr (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If only everyone acted according to that last statement. Law _{type! snype?} 05:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Common sense is very clear - if it goes against WP:U, you enforce it by not allowing people to have the name. Nothing more, nothing less, and I suggest that if you are here to bother working UAA you follow that, instead of your protecting people from the racist Wikipedia agenda that you were proclaiming on your talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh. For those who are wondering what this is about, Ottava Rima has been arguing about the username policy on my talk page for a while, and has somehow gotten the idea that I am some sort of extremist race warrior. As the conversation veered to the irrelevant and off-topic, he got me to make the shocking admission that I think racism is really bad. Back on topic, "you enforce it by not allowing people to have the name" is wrong. We have a section of the policy about "dealing with inappropriate usernames", where blocking is a single option to be used in extreme cases. rspεεr (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Things for bot to address

1. If the warning template is not substed, it is harder to remove them from the category, you have to first subst the template, then remove the category.
2. Blocking the user does not also remove the category, this then becomes a multi-step process.

Cirt (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocking on violating usernames

Just a sanity check, but unless the account is obviously being used for blatant and persistent spamming and other disruptive abuse, aren't we supposed to just soft-block usernames, which allows the person to create another account that doesn't violate the username policy? I've seen a couple of cases, especially in promotional usernames, in which blocking admins have blocked accounts harder than specified in policy (i.e. with account creation disabled). Is it also possible that many admins still yet have not read and gotten familiar with the newly-revised username policy (which was revised, as everyone here should know, a little over a month ago)? MuZemike 17:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this ties in with Triplestop's query made above that went unaddressed. MuZemike 17:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was assumed. We're blocking the username, not the user. Evil saltine (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, of course, that you can't block a username without blocking a user too. A softblock is still a block, and should not be done unnecessarily. A hardblock, even more so. By now I'm just repeating policy, but it can't hurt: admins should always evaluate the severity of the situation and apply whatever remedy is appropriate, whether it's a friendly "hey, what's the deal with your name?" or a quick hardblock. rspεεr (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little bit out of touch with how blocking policy is applied. Certainly admins sometimes make mistakes when blocking. There are obvious problems with this - new editors have no idea what a soft or hard block is, and won't now how to appeal, or who to appeal to, or the right language to use to make people understand the problem. They can face further sanctions because they "misuse" the -unblock request block template. So, it's really BITEy, and admins must not do it, but mistakes happen, and 'we' shouldn't be to aggro with admins who are making occasional mistakes. There is a vociferous group of people who say that "promotional accounts" are only here to damage the project and insert spam. I'm sympathetic to that point of view; a few accounts are only here to add links everywhere. But many promotional accounts are here to add an article about something they think needs an article - maybe the group they work for. Allowing these users to declare their COI through the username, and giving them advice and guidance about COI can benefit the project. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Like so many other things, it's case-by-case. If all they've done is create a spammy user page of the same name as their account, I go with the softblock. If I see three or more instances of obvious spamming I usually go with the hard block and the more sternly worded blocking notice. However, in response to the above message, policy does not allow promotional usernames to edit. They can declare their COI on their talk page or whatever, but using a corporate or organization name as their username is directly contrary to policy.

Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How do we expect actual bots to be created?

Should they all spring fully formed from the head of Zeus, or what?

Narayanese raises the quite valid point that username policy and bot policy contradict each other. We say a bot has to be approved before it can be named ...bot. They say that a bot has to make test edits before it can be approved, and also that it has to be named ...bot.

I certainly know which one I would consider more important. rspεεr (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree something needs to be tweaked here. I think as long as the editor is working toward bot approval and isn't running crazy stuff and damaging the encyclopedia as they get ready for submitting the bot for approval, things should be fine. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I always take a look to see if they are in some stage of the bot approval process, in which case I'll simply delist the report. Shereth 14:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Shereth. As long as the bot group knows what they are doing, I don't consider it a username problem. TNXMan 15:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If a user wants to create a bot, then (to the best of my understanding) the user should:

1. Create the account for the bot. Note that at this stage, User:HBC NameWatcherBot doesn't react - because the "bot" regex has a "WAIT_TILL_EDIT" flag.
2. Create a user page for the bot - at this point, even if this edit was done through the bot account, it's clear that the account is intended as a bot, so it won't be blocked under the claim of a "bot" suffix.
3. Take the task to BAG.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I wanted to know. I was worried about steps 1 and 2, because those take place before BAG necessarily knows about the bot, but WAIT_TILL_EDIT does the right thing. rspεεr (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we suppress/hide/delete usernames?

Recently I was on Special:Listusers to check a particular user's permissions. I noticed numerous similar usernames that were... well, to call them libelous would be a massive understatement. More like they were horrifically insulting to the main user of that name. The accounts were username hardblocked, but the names still show up in the list. What should be done about these? I know we can't really delete them but can they be renamed or otherwise suppressed from normal view? I checked a couple other high-profile users here and found similar attack names after their entry as well... I know we're not censored, but this seems like a case where deletes might be worthwhile. Thoughts? Arakunem^Talk 14:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they can be supressed - instructions on how to request such are at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for egregious problems. Shereth 15:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I almost think of those as badges of honor; I vaguely recall there was a user account created named something like User:ShoveOrangeMikeInTheOvens after I was doing some vandalism removal that was Holocaust-related. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

blocking inactive accounts?

An editor makes 2 good faith edits, then stops editing for a year. An admin blocks them for having a confusing username (the username appears to be a random string of characters.) Is there a problem with this, or is it normal behaviour? Is it a way of preventing 'sleeper accounts'? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak specifically to the case you refer to (no details) but as "confusing" by itself is not grounds for an immediate block, it sounds like a questionable block regardless of the account's age. Speaking more generally, there is indeed a school of thought that basically says "A violation is a violation, old account or otherwise, and should be blocked just in case they return." Personally I consider it a waste of time to research, report and subsequently block an account that is not likely to return, but if there are editors who wish to spend their time doing just that, they are welcome to do so. Different editors will have different opinion; mine is that blocking stale accounts is of no value. Shereth 14:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the above statement. Nothing is accomplished by blocking obviously inactive accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, nothing is accomplished by digging up a rule from the distant past that usernames that confuse someone should be blocked. Did someone actually do that? rspεεr (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Usernames that match a website

Please see the last 3 paragraphs of User:Dank/Review; I'm a bit confused. Daniel seems to be saying that I can pick a username for myself that matches a website or business, so long as I'm not connected to that website or business. But I can't call myself User:Apple Computer, right? - Dank (push to talk) 05:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that if a user name includes the "www" and the ".com" it is an inappropriate username, period. At WP:ACC we do a review (google search) of the requested username, and if it matches a website it's often rejected... however not if it is a purely coincidental match. With almost every domain name being registered in some shape or form even a random looking username like Abec2 probably matches a website within some TLD, however it doesn't mean that the username should be blocked immediately.  7  05:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would pretty much have to agree with the above. Anything that is explicitly a website name - user of the www.whatever.xx format - should probably be blocked up front. Any other interpretation overreaching. I would not, after all, deign to block Dan simply because www.dank.org exists - unless he started out editing German American National Congress :) I guess the point I would make is that if someone is going to be blocked for using a website name as a username, it had best be explicit and not just coincidental. Shereth 14:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think in the past we used to do things this way, but now if the editor is editing something with no connection to the website, we just let it go. Some people have personal websites that aren't about selling anything, and they like to have a sort of unified username online. Most people with such usernames rarely edit for long, anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

holding pen

I'm unclear on the whole situation with the holding pen. How long do we let these sit? There's one I sent there 12 days ago with "wait till the user edits." They still haven't, and probably never will. Is there a set time to remove names from the pen, or do they go to an archive somewhere, or what? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that the pen is to be checked occassionally to see if the name is already blocked, or possibly if further action should be taken, particularly on one's labelled as 'wait' or 'discussing'. For those labelled 'discussing' -- if the user has failed to respond and they're still editing, then procedure says to consider taking action or take it to WP:RFC/N for community consensus. Generally names should be removed after a week or so regardless. All this info is in the header of the holding pen page actually, so let's remember to maintain that page and not forget about it once a name is placed there. And no, there's no archive - just remove them. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV Helperbot

I noticed this edit. If you want AIV Helperbot to work on this page just let me know and I will make the needed change. Chillum 02:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, I meant to post that at Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention/holding pen, but apparently that talk page redirects here. Chillum 02:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay if anyone wants the bot to remove blocked names from that page just change the settings in the bot header[17]. Change RemoveBlocked=Off into RemoveBlocked=On to make the bot start removing people who are blocked. Chillum 02:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot Reports

I've added a link in to the bot-report page so that it's easier to access from the main page if someone wants to add a comment to a bot report. If I've done something wrong or I'm just not making any sense (a common occurence), tell me. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. For me, that is unnecessary, because I see "[edit]" section headers on every sub-section of every page anyway. But I do believe that there are some editors that don't have that option because they use a different skin or have some checkbox different in their Preferences. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh... right. *is embarrassed* I never really notice those... They're there, but I always scroll up to the edit bar at the top. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Company names

Please don't reject reports of company or group names. If they are clearly the name of the company then they are indeed a clear violation of the username policy which says in no uncertain words "Explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted."

If one does not wish to enforce this part of the policy then there is no requirement to do so, but please do not indicate to users that they should not be reporting them here. This is not in response to any one action but a long term trend I have seen around here. ^Chillum 19:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a ridiculous part of policy that would lead to many editors needing to go through discussions about name changing. (Chillum is, for example, an italian glass product manufacturer, and a US sheet metal company. Willing to change your name to something that doesn't violate this policy?) 82.33.118.5 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This was re-added to the policy(after being away for a while) after a RFC on username issues showed that the community wanted it that way. I am sorry you find it ridiculous, but it does enjoy consensus. ^Chillum 22:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And thejadefalcon is a fictional faction in the MechWarrior universe. It's allowed because it's not blatant. If I had "Kotaku" or "GamesRadar" as my username though, that would be a different matter. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Jadefalcon is a security company.JadeFalconIt. The point about blatant is important, and is something that many reporting editors miss. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if a name does not appear to be that of a company(ie User:Higher standards which may perhaps be a window washing company is not going to be disruptive or promotional on its own), but still is, that is not really a problem that needs prevention. ^Chillum 22:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. So, if the user is editing pages that are similar to their username, and their username is similar to a product/company etc then the user probably needs some help, and maybe a block. (but a block for spamming, or a watching for COI.) And if the user name exactly matches a website or product or company they probably should consider changing it. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds about right. And my name came from the above Clan, though I commend the security group on having an awesome name. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome messages

Not sure of the best place to address this issue but I noticed that a significant number of reports being made to UAA are immediately preceded by a welcome message left on the offending user's talkpage. This usually seems to be done with one of the editing-assistance scripts like Friendly or Twinkle. At best the notion of leaving a friendly "Welcome to Wikipedia" message immediately prior to reporting someone at UAA is ironic; at worst, it's sending schizophrenic signals about how things are run at Wikipedia. Perhaps this ought to be addressed at the talk pages of the projects responsible for these kinds of userscripts, but I am of the opinion that something should be done to reduce (or preferably eliminate) this kind of automated "Welcome and report" behavior. Shereth 14:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle does not leave a welcome message when issuing a UAA report. However, Twinkle does automatically generate a welcome message along with speedy deletion notifications, so promotional users creating spam pages would get a welcome that way. Other than that, I think it's just well-meaning users issuing welcomes without realizing that there's a problem with the name, which subsequently gets reported by someone else. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, because the problem is specifically welcome messages left by the same user reporting them that has got me a bit concerned. I see it very commonly, so it's not the sort of thing that seems worth educating users on individually. You are right that a lot of them come as a result of the automatically generated user message that comes with speedy deletion notifications; perhaps some thought should be given to the value of automatically generating user welcome messages in tandem with these kinds of warnings. Shereth 19:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Question - is this default behavior in Twinkle (the automated welcome message when leaving CSD notifications) or is it something that users have to enable? I don't want to go hounding the TW folks about it if it's something that the users themselves are enabling. Shereth 19:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's default Twinkle behaviour or it's an opt-out choice, rather than opt-in. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And note that Twinkle comes in two flavors: a customizable "import .js" script, and a gadget which is not customizable. I suspect that many Twinkle users, perhaps the majority, are using the uncustomizable kind. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I'd forgotten that. I use the gadget. It's simpler. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Both versions are customizable, these days, but of course most people who just tick the box in the gadgets won't know about the customization features since there is no GUI for it. Amalthea 23:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It actually is a built-in feature of the speedy deletion notification templates showing {{firstarticle}} if the user talk page doesn't yet exist (with some tweaks, i.e. not thanking for contributions if a G3 Vandalism or G10 Attack SD notice is placed). It's been doing that for about one year, and Twinkle users can opt out of this behavior just as Mandarax has said above.
Personally, I think it's preferrable to leave too many welcome messages rather than too few. It's genuinely helpful with good faithed users who make the rookie mistakes to actively give them a few more pointers about what to do next and how to get help now that their first article is about to be deleted. A number of vandals or people looking to use Wikipedia for advertising might be reformed if we actively point them at what Wikipedia is actually about. And vandals, spammers, and others who aren't reformable won't, I think, be encouraged by getting a welcome message (if they are doing that a lot with throwaway accounts they'll notice it's automated anyway).
Yes, the messages are certainly placed on user talk pages where it's fairly clear that that user won't ever be a productive editor, but as long as it isn't counterproductive to place the message, and I don't think how it is if it's always delivered with a "your article is about to be deleted, and here's why" message, I very much prefer to keep them activated by default.
I don't quite know where the best place is to discuss the value or harm of the messages, it's probably rather WT:CSD than WT:TW since it's really a template feature which is used by Twinkle-assisted, manual, and also Huggle-assisted placement of the notices (Template:Huggle/db-notice), so if I haven't convinced you, we should probably move this over there.
Cheers, Amalthea, not watching since this is clogging up my watchlist, 23:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Mralfredotv

Why was this user given a username block, and not some other more appropriate block? Some admin has told this user that the username is the only reason the user was blocked. The username is not a problem. (really, what's it promoting?) But the behaviour - which was already being addressed - is. 82.33.118.5 (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what it was promoting, but the "tv" makes me think of an obscure television website or something. Regardless, they made an article with the same name which was speedily deleted. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no User:Mralfrdotv registered, are you sure you have the name right? ^Chillum 22:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This guy. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

So, we have a user making pages about themselves. The pages are deleted, the user is warned. The user faces blocking for that problematic behaviour. So fat this is okay. But now the user is blocked for their username. They're given a block that says, clearly, "Your name is the only problem". Their name is not the only problem. In fact, their name probably wasn't a problem at all. But now they've been told they can re-register and carry on, so long as they use a new name. The old warning history is lost. The COI is hidden. Does anyone else agree that the username block was a bad way to make a block in this case? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Good block, would have done the same thing myself. Soft blocking of users who create an article promoting something that has the same name as their username is pretty much standard operating procedure. They can file for a change of username or simply register a new account at any time. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure they need to be blocked - I'll m ake it clear that even i think they need to be blocked. but would you have given them a username block? A block that says "Your behaviour is fine, just change the username?". Because, really, it's their behaviour that's the problem. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd take it up with the blocking admin and ask why. Could be there were reasons for it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's really a case-by-case basis type of thing, although the longer I do it the more I find myself inclined to go with the hard block and leave {{uw-spamblock}} as it makes both problems clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

User:PsychoKillerOnTheRun

• PsychoKillerOnTheRun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just welcomed this user whose sole edits are to Puppet Master: Axis of Evil and who as far as I can tell is editing in good faith, but I don't know, I'm just not sure about the name? I mean we may have editors whose family and friends were murdered and could find such a name offensive, no? Anyway, just thought I'd ask for thoughts here before filing an official report and if the name is harmless, that's fine too. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The username is not profane, offensive nor an attack, and IMO not a blatant violation. If you are concerned then file an WP:RFC/N Triplestop x3 23:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am not personally offended (barring the name is serious!) and just wanted to see what someone else thought. Take care! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me there's a large gulf between the names that might theoretically offend someone else, and those that actually cause offense. The username policy should only apply to the second kind, because the first kind never turns out to be a real problem, in my experience. rspεεr (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I got severely emotionally hurt and offended (details are in question two of my editor review by someone who claimed they'd "sooner join a band of rapists than become a registered Wikipedia editor" and other comments of the ilk whereas another person would just think that they were being a twat and think nothing else of it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Whereas I get more offended (by far) by the use of "being a twat" as an insult. YMMV, as they say. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(points to article) "As a derogatory insult, a pejorative meaning a fool, synonymous with the word twit - 'You are a real twat and a half' (often used in the UK)" I don't use it in the other meaning. Also, YMMV? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Your Mileage May Vary. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. And I'm sorry if I offended you (meant to put this in the last comment). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Latino_Heat_

Can I get some feedback on this name please? I don't feel that this is an appropriate use of the name of one of the greatest wrestlers of all time, but am unsure on how to proceed. Technically, it's not a violation, yet at the same time some people might object to the use of it. ArcAngel (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If he was impersonating a living person, that would be one thing, but as you say there does not seem to be an actual policy violation. Your remaining option is to discuss the matter with them, either in your own words or using {{uw-username}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious?

I think it takes more than just the current policies to deter people from making user accounts that obviously sound like business, organization or group names. Shouldn't the details on the sign-up page be updated? ...mechamind90... 23:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The more we put there the less they'll read. Intelligentsium 00:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My experience has been that most spammers are rather dense and/or think that Wikipedia is so big that they can slip in un-noticed. No amount of written words is likely to deter them the way deleting their contributions and hardblocking their account does. The more spammers I deal with, the more harsh my attitude towards them has become. You know, we shouldn't have to tell vandals that replacing an encyclopedic article with the word "poop" is wrong, they already know that it is, and we shouldn't have to tell spammers that advertisements do not belong in an encyclopedia for the same reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Personally I believe that most spammers (and probably a significant portion of "regular" users) sign up without actually reading the username policy or the details on the signup page. How many of us are guilty of signing up for some web service, scrolling to the bottom of the TOS and clicking the button that says you read it when you actually didn't? I know I'm guilty of it. Shereth 14:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I for one didn't read the username policy when signing up...I actually didn't do that until a few months ago, and I have been on Wikipedia since 2007. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I only read it when I started sending reports here. I already knew that my name wasn't an issue since I use it everywhere. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Way back when I got an account, the username policy actually read: "The best username is typically either your real name, or a longstanding internet pen name." I guess this was more of the open source roots of Wikipedia... it is common to use your real name for open source work. Gigs (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? Doesn't it discourage real names now? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It does. Gigs (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Company names

Didn't we come to the conclusion a while ago that usernames that are company names are not to be blocked on sight? --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The last RFC on the topic concluded that company names are indeed a blockable violation. Administrators do have some discretion as to whether to block someone immediately, or give them an opportunity to request a namechange if they are productive editors, but in general yes they are blocked. Shereth 17:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Link for the RFC? --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Blatant Promotion RfC. Shereth 17:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There is also the username policy WP:USERNAME which says: "Explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted". This was added in response to the RFC and reflects consensus on the matter. While no admin is required to block company names, they should not be rejected reports of them. A soft block is the way to go if their is no abusive action, you could also request the user change their name if they are communicative. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hitler

• It is possible for the substring "hitler" to occur as a false positive :: some Turkish nouns end in "-hit", and adding the Turkish plural suffix "-ler" produces the substring. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• possible, but unlikely. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• I came across an example of it in Turkish text. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Reports of stale names

I removed a load of stale names, ie accounts that have never edited (and were registered many months or years ago), or accounts that had edited, but not in months/years. I got a ping on my talk page by the user who had left the reports. Essentially, to me, if it was registered months/years ago and hasn't edited or hasn't done so recently, then it's not something for immediate concern to admins, which UAA is for. I mentioned the way in which those names should be handled if the user is truly concerned in my reply. Do consider his comments and my reply and maybe comment on if the guidelines are clear enough. See ya next week, NJA (t/c) 18:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You are exactly correct in how you handled this. Stale accounts should not be reported here. I've mentioned this to Calton (and others) before, as well. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. Last time I spoke with Calton about their UAA reports, I got this response, thus I wanted to ensure my view on stale names had consensus. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 18:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It does. rspεεr (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I will admit, however, that I sometimes don't immediately notice stale dates on specific actions if there are only a couple and they are obviously spammy (the most common reason editors are reported here). I've caught myself a couple times (recently, with editors reported by Calton, in fact) when the edits were from October or early November. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents, but I agree that stale accounts are not actionable at this board. TNXMan 19:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just piling on to say reporting or blocking stale accounts is pointless, although I have also fallen into the same trap as Nihonjoe. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Daunting backlog

Suddenly there's a huge user-reported backlog, and many of these names aren't the kind that can be dealt with quickly. Yes, some of the recent reports have had a clear reason to block, but others have been clearly not blockable when you actually look at their contributions. And some reports are in that lovely gray area where their username kinda sorta promotes something, and some are attempts to use the "speedy deletion of users" process that does not in fact exist. I've dealt with some of them, but now I'm going to go to sleep.

This spike in UAA reports does not seem to correspond to our new users' names suddenly being significantly worse than average. I think a bunch of TWINKLE users just decided "report them all and let admins sort it out". "Possible violation" is not the most confidence-inspiring block reason, for example. I would appreciate if these users looked into the situations themselves and only reported users that clearly need to be username-blocked.

Admins: please don't block users indiscriminately just to make the backlog go away -- be as careful about blocking as you usually would. Everyone: you can help by finding the names that are least essential to be blocked, removing the report, and trying something like talking to the user instead. rspεεr (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Not by me, though. ArcAngel (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Allowing for discussion before sending to RFCN

This page's instructions read: "Consider taking your request to RFCN, which is a forum for discussing possible violations after the user has already been notified and had a chance to discuss."

WP:RFCN's instructions read: "The user in question should first be notified and allowed time to discuss on their talk page about the concern regarding their username before adding the report here. Do not post the issue here unless they have refused to change their username or have continued to edit without reply." (emphasis in original)

These get the same basic message across, but the RFCN instructions specify that one should wait for them to continue to edit before adding a report. Without this, one is left to make their own interpretations of "a chance to discuss" or "time to discuss". For consistency's sake, I propose we change "had a chance to discuss." to something to the effect of "has continued to edit without addressing the issue." -kotra (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. rspεεr (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, changed. -kotra (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Username advice on signing up

Shouldn't Special:UserLogin/signup gave more advice? There is nothing there to indicate that company and group account names are unacceptable: if there were, it would reduce the workload here at UAA. Of course, giving no warning makes it easier to catch spammers: but it seems unkind to let them walk all unawares into the trap. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggested doing so previously but was shot down for the very reason you mention with regards to the ease of catching spammers. I dislike using the username policy as an ensnaring device but consensus was not in my favor. Shereth 21:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy/Archive_14#How_are_new_users_made_aware_of_this_policy.3F for a previous discussion touching on this subject. Shereth 22:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unhelpful UAA comments

Thejadefalcon (talk · contribs) has been making lots of comments about reports made by other users. These comments are very frequently wrong or otherwise unhelpful. And even when they're correct, they're not needed, as the admins are experienced and intelligent enough to figure it out on their own. Thejadefalcon defends their comments when others disagree, and cites incorrect criteria to justify their opinion. They sometimes seem to think that a username shouldn't be blocked because they personally like the name.

Some instances in which Thejadefalcon added a template indicating that a name was not a violation, and the name was later correctly blocked by an admin for the username policy violation:

Brewberrys MegaGigs Airsupplies CubeSpawn Jiomob Ooospace

Sometimes overworked, tired, and/or careless admins see these non-violation templates and, probably not realizing they were placed by a non-admin, remove valid reports without blocking, such as for Windamir.

Thejadefalcon templated Infinityair as a nonviolation and an admin removed the report. A little later, another admin correctly issued a username block.

Some of Thejadefalcon's comments are merely useless and unhelpful: Pakis13 2stupid4u Molestationdaycare

Again, the admins here are intelligent, experienced, and competent. My suggestion? Stop interfering and cluttering up the page and just let them do their job. Agolib (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend discussing this with the user on their talk page, before elevating it for discussion here. From what I have seen, then user is acting in good faith, and is making mistakes. I will advise them that perhaps their attention will be better placed elsewhere, as UAA doesn't really need this sort of feedback system, as you point out the reviewing admin should be able to handle the process as this noticeboard is for blatant violations. I don't think this issue is a big deal however, and could have been handled in a more gentle way. Still, I will contact the user and advise. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For all the ones you listed up until Infinityair, I'll say what I said on my talk page when Ioeth commented on my tag for Ooospace: "I knew it was advertising something, but I base my comments on whether I would have considered it advertising had I not seen it on UAA or seen their contributions." That is what this noticeboard is designed to combat, correct? Usernames that are advertising by themselves without any help from their contributions? For Pakis13, I fail to see how that's unhelpful. I suggested it might be a last name and therefore not a violation, but I would wait for another's views on it (they may not have considered that it might be a name). Same for 2stupid4you. I was unsure if it was blatant or not so didn't tag it, but didn't think it was. For Molestationdaycare, I was explaining where the name was from (PC Gamer used it in one issue for some inane reason) and that people should be on the look out for other names that were mentioned in that review (of which those were two that I could remember). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Pakis is a Greek name. It should never be blocked on sight unless it is clear from context it's being used as the plural of "Paki". -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, on second thoughts, since there is technically no listed advice for commenting at UAA, would any administrators like to comment on the usefulness of other users commenting on reports? I may have jumped to a conclusion that because there haven't been such commenters in the past, it isn't needed. Thanks in advance, --Taelus (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why the heck is this even at the UAA? This should be at the ANI as Jade's name has nothing to do with the subject.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Coldplay, this thread isn't discussing Thejadefalcon's username. It's discussing his comments on reports brought to UAA. This has nothing to do with ANI either, as we're obviously not going to block Thejadefalcon. I suggest you read Agolib's comments a bit more carefully. Mm40 (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, sorry for the mix up. I was thinking that since this deals with Jade's posts about these usernames the creator of this section put it here instead of the ANI. Well I was wrong. Sorry.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've largely retired myself from the arena of username policy/enforcement but felt compelled to chime in on this particular issue. Please note that the username policy is not as black and white as you are making it out to be; there is an entire continuum of names ranging from "very obviously not a violaton" up to "so blatant no one would question blocking it". When dealing with these names you will find some administrators who believe that a particular name is not an offense while others will happily block it on sight. Username policy enforcement is unfortunately, but necessarily, subjective. In most cases there is no right and there is no wrong. Typically when an admin makes the call to either block a name or remove the report, said decision is not reversed because it's usually not worth contesting (and potentially disruptive) but it does not constitute an absolute authority. Just because some administrators disagreed with Jadefalcon in his assessment of names as "not a violation" does not make him wrong - it just means that the admin who handled that particular report did not agree with his assessment. Finally, your statement that his comments as a non-admin are not helpful is extraordinarily misguided; the input of all users, regardless of who they are or what role they play, is always welcome in any discussion, including UAA reports. While we certainly hope that "admins are smart enough to figure it out", that does not mean that the input of non-admins is unhelpful in any way, as their insight should always be given fair consideration. Shereth 14:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a final opinion. So... can I restart now? Or should I leave? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Shereth, I certainly was not suggesting that the input of all non-admins was unhelpful. Things such as pointing out arcane regional or pop references would be particularly useful.

I merely singled out Thejadefalcon because he so consistently templates names as nonviolations which, in my opinion, are blatantly obvious violations. I find it extraordinarily unhelpful that when username reporters explain their reasons after Thejadefalcon templates their reports as nonviolations, he replies with a very condescending attitude while defending his position using criteria which, in my opinion, do not reflect the username policy at all, and in some instances are just plain ridiculous.

"I like it. Kind of dreamy, really." "It sounds like something from my poetry or something" This is not a blog. Such comments do not help. If a user with a dreamy, poetic name is promoting something with the same name as their username, it's a violation.

"The name itself sounds more like a character from Lord of the Rings than an attempt at advertising. It's only when their contributions are viewed that it becomes obvious." So contributions don't matter? The true criterion is whether Thejadefalcon has heard of the company being promoted, the name isn't one that he personally likes, and the name alone is actively promoting the company?

"It doesn't sound blatantly advertising to me, unless they're planning on taxing the oxygen I breathe." No, they're not taxing it, but they are selling it.

As for the use of templates: When editing WP:UAA, the section of "UAA administrator notation templates" has instructions for use of the templates, beginning with Administrators: in bold, implying that the templates are for administrator use.

While I agree that informed, helpful, nontrivial, unbiased input from non-admins can be valuable, I don't think they should be using the templates, which imply a certain degree of finality which should be reserved for admins. Agolib (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Would a user called Sleazebaggano be blocked? Because while "sleazebag" can be considered offensive, it is also the name of a little known character in Star Wars (who was seen for a short section in Episode II, but never named onscreen). Just curious. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no. [18]  7  23:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Lovedeepcybercafe

This is kind of in the same thread as the previous two sections. A recent response when User:Ttonyb1 posted a name that was very close to being softerblock-able was the standard WP:COIN template, and the response (different admin, different patroller) to the report of User:Lovedeepcybercafe was "See WP:UAA/I to know when to report names here." (a non-templated response ... which is better, but still implies that the person reporting has no idea what they're doing). In fairness, a templated answer is sometimes exactly what you want ... it implies a certain impersonality, "I'm not aiming this at you directly, we just have a certain number of canned answers, and here's the answer I think is best". So I'm not against templated answers in general, but when the report is arguably close to the right idea, I think it would be helpful to discuss why it's "close but no cigar" (do people still say that, or am I dating myself?) ... that gets across the right idea, that non-admins are very much a part of the process of figuring out how to handle the border cases, and their insights are welcome. If we discuss things, we might even find out that we're wrong from time to time ... for instance, the call on User:Lovedeepcybercafe was wrong. A quick Google search (on "Lovedeep cybercafe") showed that this is indeed someone who spams their url around the internet advertising their services, as they did here in WP:Sandbox (which, from a promotional point of view, is worse than doing it in their own userspace), so this definitely deserved a quick block. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, non-admins are part of the process, and to continue to discourage our UAA volunteers to take minor concerns into their own hands is tragic. That's what policy tells them to do, and as admins we should encourage this. As for the name, whilst it may technically breach ORGNAME, their only edit was in the sandbox, and therefore this was not a serious concern in my opinion. A simple discussion on their talk page (likely with the most relevant {{uw-coi-username}} template), which would have explained the issues should have sufficed. Had they actually then went on to spam wikipedia (or even their userspace), that's when it becomes more of a real concern, and since they were warned, then we would know they're acting in bad faith or just don't care about policy. Anyhow, while I agree the name was technically a vio, it wasn't something to get too excited over, and we should actively encourage UAA volunteers to follow policy and AGF and discuss first for minor concerns. Again, had they went on to actually spam (not in a sandbox), that's when the report is either escalated to UAA or even RFCN (as they would have been warned already). NJA (t/c) 16:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point ... sandbox edits will disappear quickly, and the sandbox is there for experimenting ... it's a bad idea to bonk people on the head for experimenting. But I still take the opposite position in this case ... IMV, we should commend the patroller for reporting this one, and softerblock it immediately (as I have). You know this NJA, but there's a legal problem with usernames that represent websites or companies rather than individuals (even anonymous individuals), namely, that creates contributions that no one has the copyright on ... not the WMF because they don't own the content here, and not any individual because we can't attribute an edit by a company or website to any one individual. We've got clear direction from the WMF that edits like these are not acceptable ... we can be nice about blocking, but we still have to block. The other point I want to make is along the lines of the Parable of the Prodigal Son ... sure, we should welcome the users who are arguably behaving bad with open arms ... it doesn't cost us anything to be nice, and if they ever cross a line, we can always block them. But when we don't extend the same AGF to the guy who's spent the last year patrolling for infractions that we extend to any old boob who happens to stumble in and deposit their trash ... I don't want to single out any particular patroller or admin, obviously there's no black and white here, I'll just say that there are patrollers who basically know what they're doing, who do their homework, including Google searches for spam urls when needed, and who get met with a templated response that implies that they seem to have wandered into the wrong place by accident. I honestly don't know if it pisses any of them off, but sometimes it pisses me off. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not discussing ORGNAME generally, I'm discussing this specific name. An edit in a sandbox will not show on google, and again whilst it's a technical vio, I still contend it was a minor concern. If WMF wants to send me a memo on it, then they know how to get a hold of me. Anyhow, let's be clear that I'm not arguing the block, as it's over and done with. What I'm concerned about is this feeling that reminding volunteers of policy is somehow wrong. I don't believe it's contrary to AGF, or that it's even rude to remind people on how the policy tells us to deal with inappropriate usernames. If it "pisses you off", then honestly I think that's a personal issue and I see no place or reason for it. I try to be courteous to all involved, ie the volunteer and the reported name. I will continue to, and I urge all admins to actively encourage UAA volunteers to follow policy by assuming good faith and discussing first for minor concerns. NJA (t/c) 17:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the emotional language comes across as escalation, I apologize for that; it's my style to occasionally say that something on-wiki makes me sad or happy or angry, if I've been feeling that way for a while and we don't seem to be getting resolution. Anyway: I didn't mean that as an "argumentum ad Jimbonem" or whatever they call it ... yes, that's a Foundation position, but the reason I'm picking this username issue to talk about is, IMO, we've had a strong consensus on it for a long time. I guess I can distill this down to two specific recommendations: if someone reports a username and it's reasonable to believe that the username might be claimed by a business or website and not claimed by an individual as a pseudonym, then instead of templating the patroller, I suggest that we ask them why, i.e. on what evidence, they believe that's the case; they might have evidence we haven't seen, or they might have an opinion on how to sort out the borderline cases that we haven't thought of yet. And when we know for sure that the username is similar to that of a business or website, but we don't feel that it's quite similar enough to merit a block, I'd recommend we give the patroller a link to some place where we discuss this issue, because the judgment calls are tough, and ask them to look at the examples provided and get back with us and make their case if they still think the name is close enough to merit a block, after they've read the examples. - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I see your point about AGF ... it means different things to different people, which makes it a "loaded" term and one that I think I won't use any more. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

hideuser

I just went to block a REALLY inappropriate username and was greeted with this message after I hit the "Block" button: "The user you are trying to block has already been blocked and hidden. Since you do not have the hideuser right, you cannot see or edit the user's block." I've never seen this before, and know that "hideuser" isn't one of the bits in User rights management. Is this some sort of feature of the oversight bit? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently this also prevents the HBC AIV helperbots from automatically removing a report as the block is hidden from view. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If it was the one you just removed from UAA, I'm pretty certain they got oversighted. I've encountered this user before (it's a network of similarly named sockpuppets) and they've been oversighted both times they posted on J.delanoy's talk page. As you can see, they were oversighted again. Once you've checked it out, Ioeth, would you mind e-mailing Oversight to deal with Cluebot's edit summary? The reverts have been oversighted previously as well. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this page may cover the hidden username. TNXMan 15:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-Latin script for bots?

I can understand why WP:UP doesn't ban non-Latin-script usernames for real people (since some people might want to use their real names and be offended by having to spell them in an orthography that is often insufficient to actually more than vaguely approximate the real thing), but I'm having a really hard time thinking of any possible justification for a bot account being named タチコマ robot on English Wikipedia. It's meaningless to any editor who doesn't know Japanese or whatever that is, and bots don't have feelings. I don't really spend any time at all in username policy discussions, so I'll leave this to the regulars. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing a reason for it is one thing, but if you could explain what the harm is in having this name, that would be helpful. No real information is conveyed by most bot names, I don't see how this is anymore confusing that "EdwardsBot" or "SoxBot." Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that information is being conveyed by most bot names (either the creator of the bot or something about its purpose). The harm, however, is in wasted editor time; hardly anyone can actually just type those characters here, so an editor needing to refer to this bot will have to go find it again (somehow - they can't search for it!) and copy the name, then come back to where ever they were and paste it in. No one has to do that for "SoxBot" or "EdwardsBot" unless they can't remember a simple name. Essentially, the rule against having usernames that are intentionally obfuscatory and confusing clearly applies here (not just because meaning is obscured, but because the name itself is impenetrable and unmemorizable and unsearchable and untypeable by everyone but speakers of whatever language that is. Even if people using their own real names in their own scripts might have a plausible exception, that clearly wouldn't apply to bots. Naming a bot like this is just silly and a frustration to others. It would actually be preferable to have a bot named "asdfsdv9i023oim_f09s8rf98uw3orijsv[p0sa98r-0wrx-0wa87,-98seug98nxdff0usdf-0sa8f0saufpsd09iusdiiuBot", since at least these characters exist on the keyboards of 99.99% of en.wiki users and "asdf" is an easily typed and searchable string for most users, and a memorable one, because of what keys it on a QUWERTY keyboard).SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If people see a bot doing something they don't like, we want them to report it; it will be a strong disincentive to report it if they can't even approximate the name. - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that's a reference to either Ghost in the Shell or Appleseed or Dominion Tank Police. It's been a while since I've read those series, so I forget which one...ah! Looks like GitS: Tachikoma. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I should note that the username policy applies equally to robots, so I see nothing wrong with this bot account name. I've also created a doppleganger account (User:Tachikoma robot) which redirects to the User:タチコマ robot account. So, there are no issues at all with this one. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Category for tracking

Not sure if to post here, or there, but I figure most people interested watch both pages and this is the page for enforcement, thus likely more relevant. As you may know, blocks using the two promo templates {{uw-softerblock}} and {{uw-spamublock}} place the user's talk page in the category Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names for tracking. I feel the same would be advantageous for other username policy blocks and created Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy, with the aim of adding it to the current standard block templates (except the two templates for promo names noted already). Anyone particularly opposed to this?

Also, it may be possible to go through the names already noted at the various 'Z' templates and add them to the category for tracking of names by use of the standardised templates from approx August 2009. NJA (t/c) 14:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, and it would also allow a bot to more easily go through them and do anything necessary (bots are used to cleaning up several related categories of tagged user pages). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Okay, so now the use of the standard templates will add them to that CAT. I will look into pulling names listed in the various related Z categories over to the new CAT. The CAT will only be good from August 2009, but it's better than nothing and of course all future blocks will now be tracked better (as the Z cats made it difficult). Cheers, NJA (t/c) 12:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Follow-up query and note: As we now have a general category for tracking of non-promotional name blocks, should the category Category: Temporary Wikipedian userpages be removed from the block templates? The Temporary category already has a huge backlog. Also as a general note, I will attempt adding names listed in the various Z templates to the new indef blocked category next week. NJA (t/c) 21:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me as long as they can each be categorized appropriately. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so note now that username blocks are either categorised in Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names or Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy only. Thanks, NJA (t/c) 08:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Goodvac and their UAA reports

Heya, I need some help please. As shown on their talk page, I've been trying to indicate to the user for three days now that some of their reports to WP:UAA do not meet the criteria, or are otherwise not username policy issues. I understand making some reports in error happens, but to continue to do so after at least two ignored posts is troubling.

Further, it seems they're warning users such as this & this, that in no way could be seen as a policy concern. Thoughts? I do not want them to upset or scare off users with continued warnings and reports to noticeboards where there is truly no real issue with their name. I'm trying to assume good faith, which is why I've been persistent and pleasant on their talk page, however I'm starting to wonder why they're ignoring these concerns. Assistance, advice, etc would be lovely. NJA (t/c) 11:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Front or back of line

There are some users who post at AIV or UAA on the top of a list of users, and some who post on the bottom. There should be a rule. mechamind90 05:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

New entries are normally go on top of such lists. Anyone using automated tools gets it done automatically. I don't really see any serious need for a new rule on the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Logged out bot

Just to make people aware, the AIV helper bot has been editing logged out for some reason. If we see an IP removing notices here, it may be the UAA bot doing the same thing. FYI. SGGH ^ping! 14:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Might want to make a note at WP:AN/I about it. But then again, they've probably already noticed it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that isn't likely. User:Chillum, the operator of HBCNameWatcherBot, has just retired. The bot needs a new human to hold the leash. I don't know squat about running a bot and I can't leave my laptop running 24/7 anyway. We need to find a new owner. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Aww poor guy. SGGH ^ping! 18:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:JamesR runs the current one. SGGH ^ping! 18:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we are be talking about two different things actually, HBC NameWatcherBot scans new usernames and reports them if inappropriate, and is not running, HBC AIV helperbot removes blocked users from the list automatically and is still running, but we haven't had any bot reported names in five days. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just checking

There are currently 2 reports to UAA that I would normally handle with a quick {{uw-softerblock}}. I have checked to make sure that there's no actual conversation going on that indicates that the new user is reading anything we've written. My question is: should I block, even though another editor has left a message for the user? - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Mladi (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) — Violation of username policy because it's a promotional username; Promotion of www.mladiinfo.com. Ash (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Being discussed with the user. ^Avicenna_sis @ 12:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thinkdesign (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) — Violation of username policy because it's a promotional username; Appears to represent Think Design Collaborative Pvt. Ltd. Ash (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Being discussed with the user. ^Avicenna_sis @ 12:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes, but only because they have made promotional edits. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There may be more than 2. Avicennasis has moved reports which they marked as UAA|d to the Holding Pen. Isn't that something which only administrators should be doing? 75.5.9.223 (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding was that names tagged for discussion that had been sitting for a while with no change in status were moved to the holding pen. If this is something only admins should be doing, then I apoligize for my mistake! (I was only trying to be be bold in helping out.) I will not move any more names to the holding pen until it is clarified whether or not it should be a admin-only task. Also, as I stated on my talk page, if my "assistance" at WP:UAA is causing more harm/confusion than actual help, I won't be offended if asked to stop. :) ^Avicenna_sis @ 21:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

What happened to {{noticeboard links}}? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing this on the WP:UAA page. It's not there currently, nor was it in Feb 2010, Nov 09, Sept 09, or July 09. (I didn't go back any futher.) Maybe I am misunderstanding the question? ^Avicenna_sis @ 01:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As Avicennasis stated, it wasn't there before. I have added it, though, as it's a useful link to the other noticeboards. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Was this removed? It seems to not be there now for me at least, and I have cleared my cache and purged the page... ^Avicenna_sis @ 09:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see it either. Does anyone know who removed it? TNXMan 11:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Odd, I placed it there. Let's see...here is where I added it, then NJA removed it without discussion four days later. I've readded it to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Header. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot 23

Please see this BRfA for a Helperbot replacement. Input is welcome, the bot will be doing a seven day trial, so please let X! or the BRfA know about any errors. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

CAT:UAA admin reminder

Heya, I was hoping to remind fellow admins who do a lot of UAA watching and/or username blocking to please try to remove the category [[Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over]] from userpages they've blocked. That way that category remains current with a listing of only names that have an active concern (ie they're not blocked). I just went through and removed about 70 names from the last ten days, thus on average we have ten a day. Over a month that'd become hundreds, so please do spend the extra few seconds to remove that category from their userpage when blocking. Thanks, NJA (t/c) 09:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave a request for a bot task for this; I don't usually look at the talk page of the blockee. When I block for straightforward cases, usually all I look at is their list of contributions; if I do see an edit that makes a clear connection between their username and a business, organization or website, and I don't see that they have responded to any concerns anyone might have expressed (and they usually don't), then I {{uw-softerblock}}. (The beauty of this system is that the ones who don't read the softerblock message because they don't care only notice that they've been blocked, and they generally don't create a page promoting the same entity even under a different username, while the ones who do read the message either send me an email or take a few moments to create a new account ... so the system we've got going gets most of these people to self-select according to their intention.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, same here, but if you're leaving a block notice (whether manually or with a script) you end up seeing their talk page. If you notice one of the two templates that invoke that category then a few seconds to remove the category won't be the end of the world (I do it). That is until we can sort out a bot. Thanks for making that request for us. NJA (t/c) 16:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I may be able to write a bot to do this, I'll take a look into it. I think this would be especially suitable for a bot since the edits can be marked as +m +b, and that way the "New Messages" bar won't be triggered. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

BRFA filed WP:Bots/Requests for approval/KingpinBot 3 - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Usernames of well-known living person

Hi, I suggest that we block creating usernames that are already names of well-known living person, and by that we reduce time and effort needed at the WP:UAA , what do you think ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhero88 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 19 March 2010

So how many names would be in this category? Who is going to create the list? Who is going to decide which people are "well-known living person"s? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There is also the issue of real names coinciding with that of a "well known living person", especially if a "well known living person" has a common or not-unlikely name. For example, what if a user's username were "Gordon Brown"? How do we know if this is someone genuinely trying to impersonate the Prime Minister, or someone halfway across the globe with a fairly common name who has no idea who James Gordon Brown is? Intelligentsium 22:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot not operating?

Resolved

Maybe I missed the discussion, but has the bot that removes blocked usernames conked out? TNXMan 17:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on there, just tracked down the bot's owner and asked [19], but it looks like he's not around that often, it may be a few days before this is sorted out. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot seems to be back in action. TNXMan 21:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And it seems that I'm the one that broke it! I'll just slowly back away now... TNXMan 21:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Too late! I smell blood in the water! I'm off to ANI to demand you be desysopped and banned and maybe beaten up a bit. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah. I like the beaten up a bit part. 100 lashes with a wet noodle is in order. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh noes! You all saw nothing! Nothing, you understand! TNXMan 11:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

AIV Helperbots

What happened to the AIV helperbots clearing blocked users? NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 21:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the problem is related to the recent change in the login procedure which bots use. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know how long until it'll be fixed, or is that even possible to know attm? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The last post on JamesR's talk page is the latest info I have (not to say there aren't more recent developments). TNXMan 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Promotional username violations, policy/practice divide

Hi. I've opened a conversation about policy wording on company names at the username policy talk page, here, and would welcome feedback there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked this at the above-linked discussion, but having received no reply there I shall try again here. Any chance someone can enlighten me as to what actually should be reported here? I've come across a few but the instructions indicate that it does not need to be blocked unless there is "evidence that an account was created in bad faith" which seems to be at odds with the Username policy. Until now (and following the instructions) I've just been dropping a {{uw-coi-username}} on their pages and leaving them to their merry ways, since evidence of bad faith seems like a pretty high bar to me. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, so far all responders at that discussion agree that promotional usernames are routinely blocked. I was rather hoping for more feedback than I've received. :) I guess I'll have to run an RfC on this one or something. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, reading those instructions more closely, they do seem to blatantly contradict policy. That needs to be dealt with. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Racist usernames

Should a link to List of ethnic slurs be included somewhere in the notice on the reporting page? Doing so would allow editors to check for usernames that may be racially offensive. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea; per the recent ANI thread, I had no idea that "Paki" was a racial slur. But what about linking it somewhere from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Instructions instead of the board itself? That would leave more room to explain that the List may offer guidance, but is not to be taken as gospel. After all, being a Wikipedia article, it is subject to inaccuracy. And a lot of the terms on there would be completely innocuous without context marking them otherwise (nine times out of ten, I would hazard, somebody named "Jock" is an athlete, not mocking Scottish people). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Could we have some kind of WP:NOBLECAUSE-block template created?

I'm thinking about something kind of like the uw-softerblock, but with an explicit link to WP:NOBLECAUSE and (perhaps) WP:UPANDCOMING, to gently break it to the advocates of some noble cause or worthwhile initiative that they can't use us to raise funds and make themselves famous. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Not bad idea. I concur. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I knocked this up by copying uw-softerblock and adding a bit to it. Feel free to tweak it around. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Now added to Twinkle's block notice menu. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

discussion of problem with some username blocks

Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#problem with the way username only blocks on promotional accounts are being handled. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

the bot is not a person, it doesn't know any better

I think some of us need to be more cognizant of the fact that the bot cannot establish context. All it does is look for patterns that might indicate a problem. Right now in the holding pen there are several bot reports that admins decided we should wait on, despite the fact that the name does not even come close to representing a real policy violation. I'm thinking in particular of reports based on the name containing a word like "cannibal" or "revenge." I suppose I could see some ways those words could be used to construct highly offensive usernames, and the bot is not subtle enough to separate those from the harmless ones so it just reports them all. That's why we have admins review the reports instead of granting the bot admin powers. An example that's holding there right now is "Teslas Revenge." There is no way, no day, that that name is a violation, so why was the report placed on hold instead of just being removed as an unactionable report? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. For some reason, I thought that the templates served a function for the bot (possibly I came across another bot that takes note of templates?). Anyway, I shall avoid in future. --Kateshortforbob _talk 17:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The bot at RFPP looks for templates as a guide to perform actions, I believe. TNXMan 17:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, why can't the bot move things to the holding pen? It removes reports of blocked users, I would imagined it could be programmed to move anything with a "wait" or "discussing with user" tag to the holding pen after an hour or so has passed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

While on the subject of bots not knowing any better, isn't it slightly ironic to use the {{UAA}}|ci template to advise a bot to take its report elsewhere? Shouldn't bot reports which aren't helpful simply be removed? I noticed that Daniel Case has done this a couple of times, not to criticise him for that of course. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

6 apostrophes

I notice that when the HTTP request fails to receive a response code, it causes the text to assume the second ''' is "Toggle Italic + apostrophe", and the '''''' is "Apostrophe + toggle Italic and Bold". Perhaps when it's blank it could say none. mechamind90 20:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation...

Resolved

 – WP:USERNAME - how did I never think of that...? TFOWR 20:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm probably being stupid, but I could have sworn we had a policy on impersonation? Could someone steer me towards it, if it does in fact exist...?

While I'm here, this is apropos of this post, this user: Alexsalmond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and this real-life politician: Alex Salmond. My first thought is to have a word with the user concerned (Alexsalmond, obviously, not the editor who drew this to my attention!) but I wanted to make sure I could at least pretend I know what I'm talking about. Which I can't right now, because I is stupid.

Thanks! TFOWR 17:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:REALNAME discusses real names. Impersonation of Wikipedia users - if bad-faith - falls under general disruption in the username and blocking policies, probably best summed up by {{UsernameHardBlocked}}. It's worth noting that sometimes some details just get copyedited out of policy, whilst remaining in effect. That's probably happened a bit here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like the first thing to do is check with Alexsalmond if they are who they appear to be. If not I'll take it from there. Thanks again, TFOWR 20:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Major vandal slipping through

I was surprised to see User:Atzmon gillie get through as this name was highly likely to be associated with the "runtshit vandal", one of the best known cases of long-term vandalism. User now blocked indefinitely. Is there not a bot that could have been set to catch it? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Too many users being scared off by discussion of non-existent violations

Regulars here will have noted that I tend to be merciless with spammers, but tolerant of just about everything else short of outright racial slurs or obscenities. I am becoming very concerned that users are being chased off by largely imaginary problems with their usernames that they are asked to discuss. This can be very off putting to a new user, when clearing out the holding pen I have noted that the majority of users who are the subject of one of these discussions simply stop editing and are never heard from again. Today's example [20] is just the latest of several such cases. I find it odd that some admins are willing to AGF to almost absurd extremes in some cases but will want to discuss a "violation" that is not at all apparent and based wholly on speculation. Thoughts anyone? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with you in some ways -- I'm not an admin but I do a lot of new pages patrol and end up tagging a lot of spam that way. I suspect we feel the same way about people who use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. It seems like your issue today was over whether a name was naughty or not, but for a while now I've felt it was too harsh to have a brightline rule saying you can be indeffed for having a username that's the same as the name of a business, and yet we hand out 48hour blocks to repeat vandals. There's no notion that these people could possibly become useful contributors and I think that's a little short-sighted. — e. ripley\^talk 21:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

WT:RFA#When did active admins register their accounts?

This is going to be one of those WP:TLDR threads I think; apologies in advance. I've seen the drama-filled "Wikipedia is dying" discussions before, but Carl's table at this link is a concern for me. A year is long enough for someone to gear up for RfA if they want to be an admin, but we only have 11 "active" admins who registered last year and 30 from the year before. Even though we admins are currently keeping up with the work, we're "graying". I'm in favor of discussion and some experimentation.

At WT:RFA, many people have tried many times to get consensus on many plans to increase the throughput at RfA, and it hasn't happened and probably won't happen. I've just made a new proposal at WT:RFA#Okay, so where are we? for an idea I'm calling "clerkship" and I'm wondering if this could work well at WP:UAA. UAA is almost never backlogged, so we don't need it here, but that's the point: we know what we're doing here, we get along, and there are some non-admins who could reasonably be expected to do a good job with admin chores here that don't require any of the admin userrights; I'm thinking mainly of moving some requests to the holding pen, leaving pointers to WP:COIN, and having friendly chats with patrollers who are often reporting names we can't accept here. [Inserted: potential clerks, please don't do this last bit yet, per later conversations ... that's for later. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)] In theory, we don't need any "structure" for this, anyone can do this anyway ... but in practice, I've seen several candidates get resistance as RfA candidates if they "butted in" on traditional admin work, and it also is a little harder for non-admins to "act like an admin" at a noticeboard. I'm thinking that some informal thumbs-up vote involving "regulars" here and also RfA people would work, and after a consensus to promote to "clerkship", the clerks could put little clerk icons (like they use at WP:CHUS) in front of their UAA posts. Again, we don't need this here, we're doing fine ... but Carl's table suggests to me that we need to start experimenting how to share the workload, and UAA seems to me one of the places where experiments are more likely to work, freeing up admin time for other things; I would do more deletion work if I did less at UAA. Thoughts? Btw, at this writing I haven't gotten a response at the WT:RFA thread ... but that's a good thing, people have no trouble speaking up in those threads if they see something they know they don't like. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would very much agree with your idea. I think clerking, especially at UAA, would be a good way for potential RfA candidates to gain necessary experience. Heck, it's one of the things I did (unofficially) before my RfA and it was mentioned several times in the support section. I also agree that UAA is a good board to test this idea because there are rarely backlogs and effective clerking would require good understanding of policy, the ability to communicate with others, and not-very-large time commitment.

One concern I do have is that it must be clear that clerkship isn't a trophy or achievement. The goal here is develop potential candidates for RfA, by giving them admin-type experience without the actual admin tools. Clerkship would be just one step on a longer path. If that's clear at the outset, I think this is an excellent idea. TNXMan 13:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (man). The only thing in there I want to push back against a little is ... not every relationship is true love, not even with Wikipedia ... there are people who really enjoy being competent at one thing. RfA is tough to pass these days, requiring broad competence and a lot of work; not every can or will ever want to pass it. But yes, I would be in favor of keeping clerkship focused on providing the kind of experience and track record in admin-related work necessary to pass an RfA, for anyone who's headed that way. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw, the clerk icon (embedded in the {{CHU}} template at CHUS) is {{clerknote}}, producing  Clerk note:. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, I get "clerkship isn't a trophy" ... that's something we would get "for free" just by extending an invitation to WT:RFA to come join any votes over here on UAA clerkship, since RfA voters are good at sniffing out insincere or shallow candidates. OTOH, I'm not against clerkship being seen as recognition by the community for competent work. - Dank (push to talk) 14:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it definitely makes sense that clerkship would be a recognition of competency/familiarity with relevant policies. I only wanted to be sure it's not built up to be more than it is. That's not to say it ever would get that way (for example, I don't see this problem with SPI clerks), but I do think that any time it becomes possible to add something to an account (rollback, reviewer, accountcreator, what have you), there are some people who want the status just to say they have it. Again, it's not a problem at other boards that employ clerking and doesn't have to be here, I just wanted to bring it up at the beginning. TNXMan 15:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CHU has people clerking it, and I don't think anyone's ever thought that their clerkship there has been some trophy of a bigger status symbol than it actually is (which is not much trophy, on the newly-coined trophy scale). 174.52.141.138 (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Dank, have you had any initial thoughts on implementation for this? To keep it simple, I think any interested users could leave a note on the UAA talkpage offering to help. Then there would be a quick "thumbs-up" vote, like you mention above. As for the actual clerking, I think the first, easiest step would be removing false positives from the bot-reports. TNXMan 16:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, we want the best clerks we can get, but not too many of them, since that would suck up too much time with people issues (training, hiring, getting to know them, supporting and opposing their decisions, etc.) One thing we could do is go for two months saying "Everyone's a clerk, here are some things you can do but feel free to suggest new things clerks could do, especially if you know what you're doing"; after the two months are up, then candidates could apply here at any time. I don't think it will be difficult to close the votes/discussions.

One reason I'm bringing this up now is that I thought WT:U#Company names as usernames - RFC went well, well enough at least that I'm less concerned that clerks will get caught in the middle between admins with different philosophies, but we'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 17:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Any more thoughts before we informally go live? What tasks can clerks do as well as admins without being able to see deleted contribs? I'm thinking we just ask that if someone wants their action to be considered a "clerk" action, they denote it by either the {{clerknote}} icon or one of the {{uaa}} icons and messages. - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the clerking idea here is just a test (since UAA doesn't really need it), but I think we really need to define what a clerk do that a regular user that comes along and comments on cases can't? There really isn't much IMO. If I felt the need to comment on a report either here or AIV, I'll just post a comment (which I've done in the past). Netalarm^talk 04:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point, we need to make it clear that after the trial period, clerk or not, everyone is still welcome to make any comment they want. The point of clerks is that the community will pick the best ones after the trial period, and the high-quality work will free up admin time. Theoretically, they could do anything admins are now doing that doesn't involve admin buttons or looking at deleted contribs. But I don't like the idea of defining the job precisely before the trial, because if we make it too easy, it may seem like trivial work and that won't give the community enough information to figure out who the best clerks are, and if we make it too hard, we set people up for failure. Let's give people a few basic ideas for what clerks could do, but not limit it to that, and see what they're willing to do and can do. - Dank (push to talk) 04:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the work here at UAA is too simple to test a clerking system. When a report comes in, there are limited things to do, such as waiting until the user edits, removing the report as a false alarm, deferring it to WP:COIN, or blocking the user. These 4 tasks are done quickly by administrators and don't require much work. A clerk could tag the cases as one of the 4 and wait for an administrator to take action, but that would be redundant since administrators probably will review the tags themselves too. Although, I did think of a way clerks could be more useful - discussing user name violations with users. This would allow the user to gain experience with the username policy while helping to alleviate some work at UAA. Thoughts on this? Netalarm^talk 05:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I generally run across at least one report a day on this board, sometimes more, that doesn't precisely fit the rules in my head and requires some thought and/or investigation ... so it's not all grunt work, there's some knowledge work too. - Dank (push to talk) 05:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to either clerk this board or discuss uvios with users, if you're taking applications yet. sonia♫ 06:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

One a day, keeps the doctors away :p I guess it would work, but I think it's over complicating things here. Might it be better to find a more complicated project to test this at? A clerk would... comment on posts and administrators can take action on them immediately. Anyone think of anything else? Netalarm^talk 23:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, we sort of already do this (unofficially) in the copyright department. Several recently promoted admins started their work at WP:SCV, where they triage suspected copyright violations (see Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2010-08-01 for how; we took the response template idea from UAA, actually). It isn't an official position; anybody is free to respond to SCV listings, and some who do are either not interested in adminship or otherwise unsuitable for it. But it's a very good way to get experience in and demonstrate competency over an area where admins are needed. And it saves admin time, as we only stop at the ones that are flagged for us (though I frequently spot-check the cleared ones, just to be sure, since anybody can pitch in. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't usually do as much with this particular board (so do feel free to weight my opinion accordingly), but I've certainly used {{spamusernameblock}} plenty of times concurrent with clearing out the CSD queue. (I imagine that's why I received the invitation to participate here, I'm not really sure why otherwise). In those cases (where User:EatAtJoesRestaurant creates an ad article on Joe's Restaurant), it's not exactly a tough case to say "Nope, not using that name, and you're here to advertise." I think clerks could help in two ways. For dead simple determinations in obvious cases, clerks could do some of the "grunt work" (checking if the editor has gotten a speedy deletion notice for creating articles about that company, vandalism warnings for adding inappropriate links to it, etc.). Not too hard to put a quick note saying "Note: User:XYZ's only contributions are adding links to XYZ Corporation's website and creating an article about it speedied under G11." For tougher cases, I could see them helping as well, by reviewing if the account in question has made any good or bad contributions, reviewing how likely it is that the editor in question knew of the entity before selecting their username, based on how well known the company is and how common of terms are used for its name (for all I know, there could be a "Seraphimblade Marketing" or something out there somewhere, but certainly if User:Goodstuff happens to have a similar name to Goodstuff Mart in Podunk, New Jersey, there's a good case they just picked the name by coincidence, especially if none of their edits have anything to do with Goodstuff Mart), and putting down their findings.

I also absolutely agree on RfA. I would venture a guess that most of us wouldn't pass now. That's probably another discussion for another venue, but it is concerning, and if we can do something to raise the rates a little, I'm for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, you were a false positive, but you're a very welcome false positive :)I take that back, since we're also talking about deletion work you're not a false positive at all! I was just going down the list of admins whose blocks resulted in a notice by the helperbots at WP:UAA. While you're here ... you know a lot about CSD. People have started talking about CSD clerking, and that seems like an awfully big job to me, I'm wondering if ... if it happens at all ... we might divide it up into chunks. Would it make sense to you to combine G11 clerking and UAA clerking into one chunk? - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that would work very well. You might put G3 in as well, since that and G11 seem to be where the overlap is—a lot of people creating vandalism and spam articles also have inappropriate usernames. G11 really is the big fish there though, a ton of people who create ads have usernames that match the company they're advertising for, or else something like "XYZ Public Relations". Doing the block/required name change at that point really does help to control the spam problem, most of them just quit at that point. I have seen a few actually change their name and make decent contributions though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Great ideas. Next venue for people who are interested: WT:CSD#Clerking. The question is: if there are clerks that handle G3 and/or G11 speedy deletion issues (such as removing misplaced tags), would it make more sense for them to be trained and vetted as "CSD clerks" by "CSD people" or as UAA clerks? Please weigh in. - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Voting?

Are we voting at the end of September ... and if we do, what position are we promoting people to, exactly? Are we also judging clerks here on appropriate use of G11 (promotional) speedy deletion tags and appropriate reports to WP:COIN, the conflict of interest noticeboard? It feels to me like it's all part of the same thing, but I don't really have a preference. Do we want clerks to be talking to people who are mis-reporting to UAA? My vote would be no, for now, that's too likely to rub people the wrong way until we have some "official" clerks who have the clear support of the community. If we vote for a clerk, does that mean we want them to see deleted contribs? I don't mind posting notes about whether deleted contribs exist or not at UAA until the end of September, because in some cases, that will make a big difference in how our clerk-candidates want to handle a report. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've thought of a brief list of potential responsibilities for clerks; feel free to use it, expand on it, or toss it.

• • Remove false positives
  • Identify reports that are not blatant violations of the username policy and mark (but not remove) them. An admin would still be required to make a final call.
  • Add any useful information to reports not present (deleted articles created by user, external websites that match the username, etc.)
  • Leave {{uw-username}} on talk pages.

Also, for the deleted contribs, I feel that most of the people who report usernames also leave speedy deletion notifications on talk pages - if the article is deleted, the notification still points to the title of the article.

Finally, I think it would be best if we started with, at most, two clerks. As has been pointed out, there's not an overwhelming need and we're still working through the process. I'd hate for people to volunteer only to find there's nothing to do. TNXMan 15:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea, and think TNXMan's suggestions are good. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I like most of that. The bot produces a lot of no-brainer false positives, if these are already out of the way reviewing the list would be simpler. What I wouldn't want is them leaving the discussion template on the pages of users that might just be blocked outright, I've always thought it makes us look schizophrenic to ask someone to change their username and then block them anyway. In most cases it is a fairly easy call to make, but of course "offensive" usernames are a minefield of personal interpretation of what is and is not offensive. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Another clerk task: moving stale reports or any bot report that has been responded to to the holding pen. Also they could help clear the holding pen of usernames that have not edited after a week of holding. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good addition. How long should a report sit before it's considered stale? I think a minimum of a few hours, but not longer than a day. TNXMan 17:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As a frequent admin contributor at UAA, I'll add my opinion. I think having clerks is a good idea. In general, I don't think UAA is particularly backlogged, and not in dire need of additional assistance, but having clerks will help in broader ways. With RFA making it increasingly difficult to get new admins, having editors help out here is a great way for them to assist with admin-like duties without having to go through RFA. For those clerks that want to go through in an RFA, they will have something to point to in order to show that they can act appropriately with admin-like tasks. The suggestions above by Tnxman307 and Beeblebrox seem like perfectly reasonable tasks for non-admin clerks. If there's going to be any kind of vote on who can be a clerk here, I suggest making the bar very low. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As a non-admin who frequently reports on this board I just wanted to chime in and say that I agree with Tnxman307's proposals and would like to help out in any way that I can. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• As an admin that frequents UAA I agree with all of the proposals as they make sense to me (thanks Dank, Beeblebrox, and Tnxman307 for the ideas). As Edgar said it will also help clerks to have a "better resume" should they want to go for RfA in the future. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerking

I'm ready to begin when anyone else is; just start adding {{clerknote}} with your comments or one of the {{UAA}} icons (see Template:UAA for options) after other people's reports at UAA, and my understanding is that we'll have a vote later on on who gets to keep using the clerk icons, maybe at the end of September. comments under other people's reports (and see below for discussion of what people are looking for). I think clerks might want to avoid the messages that begin "This noticeboard is for blatant violations of the username policy" and just write out the second part of the message with a quick explanation, but that's just a guess, we'll see. Hard to say, but my guess is the time spent in voting on clerks and communicating with clerks and making sure the clerks don't give contradictory messages to the people reporting usernames will mean that the community decides to only promote a few clerks, but we'll see about that, too.

Clerks could do a lot of the stuff that admins do; do whatever you want to do, and we'll figure out what works as we go. For instance, a user named Cafe Mystere was just reported who created a now-deleted promotional page called PrimaCafe. You might:

• Do a Google search on the chance that those are the names of two related businesses, which would allow us to {{uw-softerblock}} the user. I couldn't find it; maybe you can.
• PrimaCafe has already been tagged WP:G11 and deleted, but if it hadn't been tagged, a clerk might want to do that.
• The new-page-patroller who reported the name has made a bunch of reports to UAA that have been accepted, and some that weren't. It's a judgment call when to explain the guidelines to patrollers; even if you know exactly what you're talking about, it has occasionally annoyed some patrollers to the point where they stopped patrolling and even left Wikipedia completely when lots of "helpful" people posted something on their talk page every time they arguably made a mistake. (This is another reason not to have a big pile of clerks, all trying to give feedback to patrollers at once.) [Inserted: let's wait on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)]
• Some new users should be reported to WP:COIN if we don't block them here.
• We've got the big ideas pretty much covered, but there are a lot of judgment calls; clerks may want to talk about what they're doing and why here or at WT:U to help us all nail down the borderline cases, and when it comes time to vote on clerks, that would help the voters see that the clerk is putting some real thought into the job and communicates well.
• That's just a few things you could do, and that's just one report. There's lots to do. Some bot reports are false positives. Some reports could be moved to the holding pen. The hardest part may be figuring out when to do nothing, for instance if it's a tough call. - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I still feel this is entirely unnecessary, and yes, I know you've said it's a test... but I feel there is no need to create more "user classes". Anyway, I'll help out when I can to help test this. Netalarm^talk 03:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Most noticeboards don't have clerks yet, so you're right, this hasn't been necessary. What's happened recently that has got people worried is the story in today's WP:Signpost, particularly the table at WT:RFA#When did active admins register their accounts? ... that is, the number of active admins according to the year they started has gone from about 200 a year down to 30 for 2008 and 11 for 2009; that's not a drop, that's a plunge, and we have to figure out a way to start delegating before we lose another 200 or 400 active admins. We also need more admins, and some have suggested that a few months of solid clerking will go down very well at RfA. I'm totally with you that we don't want to create layers of bureaucracy ... if anyone sees that happening, if people feel like they can't talk to whoever they want about whatever they want to because clerks or admins are standing in the way, I'd like to hear about it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a serious plunge, but I feel that it's because people seem to have too high a standard for admins these days. Not only do they have to be familiar with the vandalism policy, username policy, BLP policy etc, they have to create content and basically not make any mistakes. To be honest, everyone makes a mistake once in a while, yet potential admin candidates are often times opposed because of a simple mistake they have learned from. Anyway, being an admin requires that someone be well rounded in everything, which is hard... since we can't be good at (and aren't interested in) everything. Netalarm^talk 04:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinions are all over the place on how hard RfA actually is, but we're all agreed that it looks very scary and divisive more often than it should and that's a major problem. If you can solve that problem, you should tackle quantum gravity and a cure for cancer next :) - Dank (push to talk) 05:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think I'm suitable for the job, I'd apply too for a clerking position. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not encourage or discourage any particular candidate ... not until the end of September when we maybe vote :) But please, do jump in, you've done a lot of work at UAA and admins have accepted most of your reports so you clearly have a shot. - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

An infobox at UAA might be helpful so that people know they don't have to ask permission to clerk, and that there's a "competition" of sorts going on ... I'll add it now, but anyone can feel free to revert if it's too distracting, or tweak it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

WHich of those things listed above that a Clerk could do, what is there that I can not do already? 89.211.58.141 (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I must say, without at all putting down anyone who may wish to help out, but does it really get busy enough here that we would need anyone else? It doesn't get as busy as AIV does and they are happy with admins, non-admins can already decline non-vios or pick out false-positives here, and at the very worst a line at WP:AN can be dropped to get another admin over here, and there is less imperative to resolve issues quickly here than there is at ANI or AIV. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hold on...

I'm beginning to get the impression that "clerkship" here is primarily used to generate better admin candidates, which I do not believe should be the primary reason (if even a valid reason at all) for starting such a system here. If someone wants UAA experience before an RfA, he can always comment here as a regular user, thus having no need for a clerk system. The tasks currently outlined above for clerks can also be done by regular users, and should be done by regular users in the future, as this allows more input and gets rid of any unnecessary bureaucracy. IMO, if a clerking system is implemented in the future, it would make sense to limit what regular users may do so as to give clerks some extra leverage at UAA (for example, remove false positives, comment on non-blatant violations, discuss with users should be limited if clerks are implemented). That is why I don't feel there's a real need to implement such a system, as it creates unnecessary layers of users. Also, we don't have people clerking at AIV, WQA, or COIN because it's unnecessary. It's kinda the same here... Netalarm^talk 04:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I second this idea that clerkship is not really needed. I've been at WP:UAA on and off since March 2010, tagging discussions and whatnot as an non-admin, and the only remarks I've received from admins have been positive. While the final call is up to an admin, (as it should be,) anything preceding should be open to all editors, in my opinion. The only good reasons I see for clerkship would be if (1) WP:UAA is backlogged often, which it is not, or (2) there is a lot of work for each report, thus clerking users could help reduce the workload on admins. The processing of WP:UAA reports, however, does not seem labour intensive to me. Serveral non-admin users besides myself often help out here, and I haven't seen a negative response to it; nor do I see a need for another "level of trust" to WP:UAA. That's just my two cents, though. :) ^Avicenna_sis @ 07:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Having clerks shouldn't preclude non-clerks from the board, but instead it should be an endorsement that they have been doing this long enough to have demonstrated competence at it. ϢereSpielChequers 16:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see what I'd be able to do as a UAA clerk that I can't do at UAA already. I'm in and out of UAA as my time allows, and have been for quite some time now. Most of my reports get accepted, some don't. I think a clerkship would be more of a "this user has been doing this long enough that s/he can reasonably be expected to know what s/he is doing most of the time." Adminship would be a nice goal and clerkship would certainly help towards that, but even after five years with an account on Wikipedia, I don't feel I have the policy knowledge required of admins, and I've certainly made a number of mistakes along the way. I don't want to nominate myself to an RfA... and if someone else nominated me, I'd have a hard time accepting the nomination (though I would be flattered). I've gotten Reviewer privileges as part of the reviewed edits trial, and I'm having a very hard time wrapping my head around how that works, since it usually hassn't worked in the way I've expected it to whenever I've tried. Anyway... yes, I'd accept clerk privileges if UAA-patrolling admins feel I'm competent enough to have them, but I do not feel clerkship is strictly necessary. Tckma (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

@WereSpielChquers: Someone can demonstrate their understanding of UAA by commenting here frequently. There's no need to create a new "clerk" position, as it creates unnecessary bureaucracy. We should all be able to comment and do things that we believe are in the best interest of WP, and there's no need to restrict such actions to a limited group of people. Netalarm^talk 22:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

@Netalarm, I wouldn't support a clerking system if it meant restricting non-clerks from commenting, but I don't believe anyone is suggesting that. ϢereSpielChequers 00:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That's good to hear, but IMO the use of the clerk template in discussions is not user friendly. I mean, if someone was to comment on a report and find a clerk reply, it would give the commenter and people browsing along that the clerk has more authority than other commenters. Really, it all goes down to how people perceive this, which I have a feeling people will perceive clerks as having a special position with extra authority over UAA that other users do not have (since they get to use the clerk template)- simply unnecessary. There was nothing wrong with the old system, but if people feel it needs more help, I'm sure recruiting more users to participate with no official "clerking" system would work too. Just my thoughts on this. Netalarm^talk 03:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Dank that clerkship would be beneficial in keeping things moving along. Clerking at WP:CHU/WP:USURP is welcomed. Clerks can sign their posts with " Clerk note:" via the default output for {{CHU}}, some don't. I don't spend enough time here, so I'm not sure if a formal process is needed for appointing them (could just use clerk=yes on the {{UAA}} template; clerkship would not grant any kind of "additional authority" to apply the username policy). My only concern Beeblebrox raised above at #Too many users being scared off by discussion of non-existent violations (perm). We need to (continue to) tread lightly with good faith users. –xeno^talk 01:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There's never been (to my knowledge) a formal process for becoming a clerk. When I clerked at CHU, I simply read the instruction and followed them. 174.52.141.138^{Also 67.136.117.132}02:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Not at CHU - though the other two active clerking roles at Wikipedia:Clerks do have a vetting process. UAA could simply adapt Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance and see how it goes. –xeno^talk 02:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:Clerks, Netalarm has posted some excellent links on past "failed" clerk attempts at WT:Clerking. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Codes

Can we have a link on the main page to the codes (Not a blatant vio etc)? I can never remember them and I can't find them. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are at the edit screen, at the top you'll see this:

UAA administrator notation templates

Administrators: These are comment templates commonly used for notation of reports at WP:UAA. To use, copy and paste the template after the submission you are notating (do not substitute!). The main template can be found at Template:UAA. Result Shorthand Longhand Wait until the user edits. :{{UAA|wt}} ~~~~ :{{UAA|wait}} ~~~~ Being discussed with the user. :{{UAA|d}} ~~~~ :{{UAA|disc}} ~~~~ drfcn :{{UAA|dr}} ~~~~ :{{UAA|drfcn}} ~~~~ rfcu :{{UAA|cu}} ~~~~ :{{UAA|rfcu}} ~~~~ Keep monitoring the user, until their username is more clear. :{{UAA|m}} ~~~~ :{{UAA|mon}} ~~~~ spam N/A :{{UAA|spam}} ~~~~ aiv :{{UAA|v}} ~~~~ :{{UAA|aiv}} ~~~~ ani :{{UAA|a}} ~~~~ :{{UAA|ani}} ~~~~ rpp :{{UAA|r}} ~~~~ :{{UAA|rpp}} ~~~~ ssp :{{UAA|sp}} ~~~~ :{{UAA|ssp}} ~~~~ Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. :{{UAA|ci}} ~~~~ :{{UAA|coi}} ~~~~ Not a blatant violation of the username policy. :{{UAA|not}} ~~~~ :{{UAA|notexist}} ~~~~ notb :{{UAA|b}} ~~~~ :{{UAA|notb}} ~~~~ nb talk :{{UAA|t}} ~~~~ :{{UAA|talk}} ~~~~ Stale: This account has not been used in the last 2–3 weeks. :{{UAA|e}} ~~~~ :{{UAA|stale}} ~~~~ Comment: :{{UAA|c}} ~~~~ :{{UAA|com}} ~~~~ Note: :{{UAA|n}} ~~~~ :{{UAA|note}} ~~~~ Question: :{{UAA|q}} ~~~~ :{{UAA|question}} ~~~~ merge :{{UAA|me}} ~~~~ :{{UAA|merge}} ~~~~

Just click "show" and you should have what you need. :) It's all in the edit notice. ^Avic_ennasis @ 05:28, 16 Elul 5770 / 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I'll be... Thanks! Exploding Boy (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Pornhistorian

Pornhistorian (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) — user was usernameblocked after his name was posted here. User:Pornhistorian argues that the name isn't a violation. User:Jpgordon agrees, and I'm inclined to agree as well. Please review. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the user name is certainly a conversation starter! I concur that it is not strongly offensive; however, it is still offensive. --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's already been unblocked, so there you are. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, having just finished reading his user talk page. Well, at least it's not strongly offensive, it could be worse! I can't wait to see some comments from some prepubescent kids on his user page. --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Holding pen

A thought: the holding pen is for things that don't require immediate attention. Would it abuse the holding pen too much if we also move things there if, arguably, we could take immediate action, but it wouldn't hurt to slow down a little so we can make sure that everyone's rowing in the same direction, particularly the patroller who reported it? Generally, reports disappear very fast from UAA, and I believe some of the patrollers aren't checking to see what was said and what was done. Pointing them to the discussion and leaving it up for a day in the holding pen might help (or longer if it turns out there's significant disagreement, and sometimes there is). - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem either. Looks like a good idea, as long as the pen doesn't get too big and unmanageable. A few days stay is fine with me. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

How can an "ordinary" user help?

So what exactly can and can't "ordinary" users do to help out with WP:UAA? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Totally up to you. You can watch edit filter 188 for likely username violations, you can keep an eye on new pages (see WP:NPP), or you can just hang out here and at the holding pen giving your opinion on cases that aren't handled immediately (usually because we'd like more input). Cymru am byth. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

All right. Thanks! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 15:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the extent to which non-admins are allowed to participate? I've observed non-admins removing reports and/or using the notation templates, but don't feel that we should be doing either on a regular basis. sonia♫ 10:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as the user is sufficiently familiar with the username policy and UAA, I don't think this is a problem; the admin bit isn't required to comment with the notation templates or to remove non-vios, so an admin isn't required there. I had similar concerns when I used the AIV notation template previously, but was informed in IRC that it's fine (and indeed helpful) as long as it's used correctly, though it's less required in AIV, which usually has admins quickly acting on reports. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Blatant non-violations, like those often reported by the bot should be removed by anyone. Borderline cases probably not unless there's a consensus. Some of the notation templates - like 'discussing with user' or other relevant comments are also very appropriate for non-admins. For me the most useful thing non-admins can do here (but only where appropriate) is discuss with users, inform them that we have a username policy, and persuade them to get renamed or create a new account to prevent them being surprised and bitten by being blocked out of the blue. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

All right, thanks. I'm just rather averse to treading on toes, I suppose I should be a bit bolder. sonia♫ 11:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

question about real name accounts

It seems to me that the Toya Carter (talk · contribs) account ought to be blocked with instructions to send a verifying email to OTRS to prove identity, but I haven't been able to figure out the right settings or template. Could I get a pointer? Apologies for the newbie question. Looie496 (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Being overrun by promotional usernames; assistance of administrators required

If my reading of a few filters is appropriate (two which I additionally added on UAA for admin reference right now), I believe we're being overrun by promotional usernames. If I'm right, then we need some more administrators to kindly use the filters I've added to UAA to start blocking these promotional usernames which are making promotional edits (many not logged in history, but in filter log only). I have tried to block and realise that I alone cannot handle the bunch. Just a handful of more administrators and we'll probably be fine. Assistance please? Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm new at this so forgive me if this is a stupid response, but it seems difficult to make use of the filter output, first because one cannot tell whether an account may already have been blocked, and second because a name will remain in the filter output even after it has already been reviewed. If there were a bot functionality to transfer account names from the filters to this page, and to make sure this is only done once per account and only for accounts that have not been blocked, it seems like it would be a lot more admin-friendly. Looie496 (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh. You don't have the script that crosses out blocked accounts. You could take it from my script box. You could copy the appropriate script (I've left notes there) and paste it to your monobook please. I accept that reading edit filters is confusing at the start, but it gets easy once you get used to it. For example, while one filter shows accounts that are adding websites with their exact names as the website link (so one should only look at the 'new links added in edit' part of the filter), another filter shows users adding promotional text to their user pages; and so on so forth. I won't write more on edit filters here due to some concern. I am thinking of putting this promo issue up at the pump later on if the issue persists because the number of promotional accounts I see can simply not be handled by me alone.

In three or so sittings in the past few days, I had blocked 200 plus accounts, and then given up because of sheer monotonicity of the process and being able to do nothing else, especially AfDs which interest me a lot. Without help, I will keep blocking accounts myself of course whenever I can, but somehow would feel bad to see promo accounts across the project. At the same time, I have to mention that I would consider blocking vandal accounts a bigger issue - so would not wish that any admin busy in vandal fighting, like HJMitchell, lessens his work effort there. That's why requesting for new assistance as I see many administrators pretty eager to help out at UAA, but few ready to jump into filters Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 02:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mr.Z-bot already reports users that trip certain filters to AIV. Maybe its owner Mr.Z-man could be asked to tweak it so it also reports users that trip the "promotional username" filters to UAA? The helper bots will then automatically remove blocked users. Theis101 (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I used to use Wikipedia:Coibot, it would catch a large number of promotional usernames, since it detects people creating articles and placing links similar to their username. Someone needs to go bug User:Beetstra to get it working again. As for the backlog, one of you fine fellows that I opposed at RfA should nominate me. :) Gigs (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I check the three UAA filters often, and combined with the script that crosses blocked account names, it is very useful, and yes, I see more spam and Vanispamcruftisement than before. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

coffin nails

Apologies to Dank, but I feel it is time to declare the "clerking" experiment a failure. The users who were actually helping in any real capacity seem to have moved on and most of the actual work aside from the reports themselves is once again being done by admins. It was a well-intentioned idea but it just didn't work. I don't see any benefit from any old random user who may or may not have an adequate understanding of the username policy "endorsing" reports. It seems rather silly and more akin to "liking" on Facebook than Wikipedia, and I believe the practice should be discontinued. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I only recently became active again, but I agree. Administrators become administrators when the community believes they are knowledgeable of the username policy. Having non-admins clerk is therefore not very helpful--especially considering that any competent admin should be able to determine this themselves and every admin must think for themselves and determine whether there is a violation regardless of how many people "endorse" the report. Just my view. Malinaccier (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Occasionally, there are instances where non-admins have managed to see something an admin missed (I can think of a couple off the top of my head); however, I'd overall have to agree with Beeblebrox on this. Also, I think that a lot of non-admins have a much lower threshold for what constitutes a violation (especially in the offensive category), which over time can do more harm than good. Good concept, but it just doesn't seem to have worked out The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I see it the way Beeblebrox does and I was for it at the time -- Alexf^(talk) 11:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Cough: I haven't gone anywhere, I still help out when I can ;) (though I am in a semi-wikibreak at the moment). I have been against the idea of clerkship from the start however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• I also agree that the "endorse" idea is odd... I used it a couple of times to endorse bot reports, but see no point in endorsing another user's report; if I don't think it's correct I'll comment to that effect; if it's justified I'll wait for an admin to action it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said most of them have moved on. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's time to pronounce this particular idea DOA, but I do think it can only be a good thing to make sure non-admins feel welcome to participate at UAA if they have useful input. The "clerkship" experiment has done some good for that, I think. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen more non-admin input, which has usually been helpful, especially with foreign language usernames. I'm basically with HJ Mitchell on this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Endorse template

• Feel free to revert if I've been too WP:BOLD, but I have just removed the endorse option from Template:UAA since it doesn't seem to be performing a useful function (and at the least, the fact that it was awkward to use it in conjunction with a comment, making it more or less a "vote", means it needs improving even if reinstated). It strikes me that the only time this might be useful is with bot-reported usernames to draw attention to the few which may be an immediate issue in the often inaccurate bot reports; having another editor "endorse" a report makes no difference at all from what I can see, given that before a report is actioned, it must be checked by the actioning admin anyway; if it's a blatant violation, the admin should be able to easily recognise it as such and the endorsement from a second user is unnecessary, and if it's not, that's where non-admins are most able to assist, as removing reports as non-blatant vios or moving them to the holding pen doesn't require admin tools. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Good move, but if we made a similar one that just said "endorse" with the same little tick icon, I think it could be beneficial. It would help to give non-admins a voice and they might feel more encouraged to comment on reports, which can make a difference in borderline cases. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I added a note encouraging non-admin participation like the old one, but less the mention of clerkship. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think having non admins check bot listings would be more helpful, especially of someone gives 'em a clue what they are looking for, as I've always felt the bot is a bit random, and as its not sentient, having a RLH check whether it's making any sense is helpful. Users report the oddest stuff (someone reported User:Albert Einschtein a couple of hours ago), and I'd prefer leaving the judgement call to an admin--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course we should be leaving the final decision to an admin, but, I for one, might decline or action a borderline report based heavily on a well-reasoned endorse from a non-admin. The other point is that, now we're dispensing with the "clerkship" idea, we'll attract the editors who genuinely want to help rather than those looking for another hat or a springboard to RfA (not that i'm saying that was the intention of all non-admins who were active here a few weeks ago). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Bit of guidance - 'check if the bot has flagged 'Penistone' for containing 'penis' (it's a hill in Yorkshire), check if the user has edited and if the edits suggest a problem, report back. As with you, I'd be more likely to block on a report that the user's first edits were flaky. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Has the bot even been functioning? I haven't seen any bot reports in quite a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed, Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot has no edits the last month. The helper bot that removes blocked users is working, but the reporting bot is apparently down. There are several queries on the operator's talk page which do not appear to have been answered. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• As a side note regarding the discussion aboveabout judgement calls, ultimately an admin will need to make the decision to block a user, since they're the only ones capable of doing so. With regards to declining non-blatant vios or moving reports to the holding pen, typically if I'm the first responder, I'll use the appropriate parameters of the UAA template and/or leave a handwritten note explaining why it isn't a problem, or suggesting that we should wait, discuss it with the user, keep an eye on it, or whatever, and then leave it to a second user to remove it or move to HP. If a user (admin or otherwise) has left such a comment already, I usually remove it as a nonvio or move to the holding pen as appropriate if I agree with the assessment, or leave an additional note discussing it, if I disagree. Essentially the result is that blatant violations are actioned by an admin as appropriate, and other reports are removed or HPed with the agreement of two responders. I'm not sure what the "official" approach is, but this approach has generally seemed fair to me. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Addendum: In the case of bot reports, I usually just remove false positives immediately with an edit summary to that effect, or occasionally move them to the holding pen if discussion or waiting is required. It is often useful to admins if comments are left on the "correct" reports however, particularly ones which are non-blatant vios but still represent a problem. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually used this endorse option whenever I happened to see someone else's report I agreed with...if I needed to add a comment to it I just made it read like "Report endorsed by me...*comment here* ~~~~". I fully support it being added back in just as "Endorse", or if people think that's too much !vote-ish, "Report endorsed because..." or some form where it's much less easy to use without a reason (perhaps add a mandatory reason parameter?) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Endorsing reports on blatant violations is a waste of time (and some of the accounts created by the LTA types need to RevDel'd, so endorsing it just creates one more revision that needs deleting), but endorsements (in template or handwritten fashion) of borderline reports supported b a sound rationale can be useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the parameter being reinstated (hopefully also improved in doing so) if others think it's useful; but since its use is mainly only useful for bot reports, maybe something like " The bot may be on to something here" would work? Or rephrased to be more formal perhaps. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How about something like  Another false positive from that damn bot!? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sentiments endorsed by me, but I suspect simply removing false positives will be more useful than having UAA inevitably turn into a cloud of red crosses ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Bot keeps removing my report due to a technicality.

Resolved

Please see here. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Best bet is to simply ask the blocking admin to extend it to an indef. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see a different admin already extended the block shortly after your message here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much GiftigerWunsch for letting me know. I hadn't noticed that. Good to know. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There are alternatives

Thank you Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), who has just removed a whole set of unactionable reports. I'm concerned that our hardworking new account patrollers are getting what we used in the Revenue to call 'down the steps*' syndrome. They do a great (and largely thankless) job, but there seems to be a perception that the only option for a non compliant username is to post it here to request a block, forgetting that WP:BADNAME has a hierarchy of options, of which a block is the last step, and the first step is to try talking to the chap. (*down the steps to the bridewell - the holding cells below the magistrate's court, where a rate defaulter would be taken if he had been 'had up' on a warrant of arrest, or 'sent down' for up to 30 days for failure to pay) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that there's a gray area, especially with promotional usernames. I've noticed that sometimes admins will decline it if it's not spelled out why the username is promotional. One example that comes to mind is User:Wotcc44, which seems innocuous enough until you go to their talkpage and see what they were doing. On the other side, I know I had User:Cheadleh get shot down a few days ago (only the 3rd time that's happened, and one got VOA blocked anyways). That was a borderline case, and I think in that instance I saw that it tripped a filter (whichever one catches promotional material) and jumped a little too fast. I'd suggest that for promotional usernames, users should point out exactly what edits they have to back their claims up (unless the name speaks for itself; a username like User:General Electric Inc. is sufficiently obvious, whereas User:Wotcc44 isn't until you look at their contributions), while admins, before declining a report, should check the filter log to see if something shows up there. Also, it might be good to link to WP:REALNAME somewhere on this board and to say whether or not stage names fall under this, as I see a lot of people report names and/or stage names even if they're not impersonations. Offensive/disruptive username standards are generally similar among admins (and misguided reports are far easier to pick up on in those cases; there was one particularly amusing example yesterday), but with promotional usernames it can be a bit tricky. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it would help a great deal if people could put a bit more information in. Also, as I said with Cheadleh, a user who creates an account to write an article about their school radio is misguided, but could possibly be persuaded to stick around. My other concern is that a blatant violation means one made with some malicious or disruptive intent. Someone who picks User:1andonlyDonnyOsmond may have committed a terrible breach of good taste, but please don't report them here - just ask them on their userpage. Same with User:Henrybot - just ask them would they mind changing it a bit (or even to 'bit'). It bothers me the number of reports that come here where no-one has tried talking to the user, they just want an admin to block the name. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you on Cheadleh's case, and I think that a bit more communication is helpful as well (it certainly would have been in that case). It would prevent one of our younger users from reporting something like User:Shazbot, because if they simply asked they'd get an answer without having to drag the user here (and wouldn't have to get teased for never seeing Mork and Mindy). I've always made it a point to include a little information with my reports, and I think your suggestion about having more communication is good. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, after seeing yet another report on UAA that clearly falls under WP:REALNAME (there as of 7:36 UTC), I think we really should stick something in the template that says something like, "Any editor may edit under their real name; do not report these usernames here unless you have very good reason to believe that the user is an impersonator". To date, I can only remember two times where someone reported here for editing under a real name was an obvious impersonator. This has been happening a lot, and I think sticking something in the template would greatly reduce the number of unactionable reports here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a really good idea. Do you want to have a crack at adding it? It's not a change of policy or anything, you should just be able to edit it Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've gotten it added to the page notice when you edit the page; however, I can't seem to get it to display on the UAA instructions at the top of the page. If someone wants to figure that out for me... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to edit Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Header Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... can you tell that computer science isn't my major yet? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Late to join the party here, but I agree; I've seen so many reports of users using their real name that I was considering simply adding a notice myself. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that I have slightly altered the emphasis so that the take-home message, anyone may edit under their real name, is very obvious. It matches the bolding used in the other points above it better, as well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; that does look better, now that I see it. Nice job. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

stale accounts

It says in the header not to report stale accounts, but we do get such reports, and what is done with them is inconsistent. I don't really have strong feelings about it either way, but we should be consistent. A clear and obvious spammer is a spammer no matter how long it takes for it to be noticed, but if they haven't edited in six months nothing is really accomplished by reporting and blocking them either. I admit I've been inconsistent myself, when clearing out old spam from user space I often block the account in cases where it is named after the whatever they were spamming, but sometimes when something like that is reported here I just slap {{UAA|stale}} on it and move on. I guess an argument could be made that there is some merit for blocking in the case of spammers, as they will find it discouraging to see that not only has their spam been deleted, there is a page with their companies' name on it that has a big fat notice about how they have been blocked for spamming Wikipedia. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Generally if it's stale, i.e. the user hasn't edited in months, blocking them is just going to be a waste of time; there's a good chance the spammer only joined to briefly spam and then never come back. They're not going to see it, it's not going to change the fact that they don't intend to edit further anyway, and it may as well just be left. I would say it's worth blocking, however, if the username is a violation as being promotional, based on the evidence of the user's edits from months ago, if they've also made more recent ones. By which I mean, user "myfriendlycompany" adds links to its homepage to several pages in January, and then the username is spotted in August when the user fixes the wording of an article. In this case though, it's probably worth asking them to change their username of their own volition before blocking them for it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Now, if we're talking about really bad usernames (something like User:CuntFucker69), it seems worth it to block those anyways just in case they're sleeper vandal accounts, but for spammers I think Giftiger wunsch pretty well nailed it. Just my thoughts, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen any reason not to block 'em when they are open-and-shut cases. It's my time to waste using the ol' Mop-and-Bucket to clean up the mess. The message is clear enough, and worth sending over and over again. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Prime example:User:Xulonpress - spammed about themselves in July 2006, spammed about their authors in November 2007 and then in March 2008, then quiescent for 2+ years until they suddenly started up again today with edits to the article about themselves. I see no reason why we shouldn't have blocked them at any time in the past years, without waiting for their recrudescence. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but for every one of those there are 100 that will never edit again. --Jayron32 03:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

One reason stale accounts are requested to be left alone is because of the load that the software faces when the user_touch field is invoked, which subsequently invokes the MediaWiki:Blockedtext after checking the username against the whitelist and the blocked list of usernames, apart from the ip log data maintained directly on the servers. Yet, in the case of confirmed dynamic ip proxies, it's better to enable the autoblock indefinitely, irrespective of usage being stale. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 11:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A spammer is a spammer. Blatant spammers should be blocked, regardless of staleness of the account. They may come back and the message we send is we do not condone or accept spam. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

True Alexf. But you will have to take it on a case by case basis. It's always fair good faith practice to let even blatant spam accounts be blocked for recent indiscretions than for those committed, say, six months back. This becomes more imperative if you're talking about indefinite hard blocks. Best. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the autoblocks generated by hard blocks, I was under the impression that they died quickly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

24 hours. They die in 24 hours for all ips that are under the autoblock. But in an indefinite hardblock, each time the blocked user attempts to log on (say, even after six months), the user's ip(s) is(are) again autoblocked for 24 hours; thus, the autoblock is also active indefinitely for practical purposes. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 04:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your point on recurring (indefinite) autoblocks. Good to know. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

An adjustment may need to be made...?

I made an edit somewhere inside this history. At first I had noticed there was no tag that said either {{noadminbacklog}} or {{adminbacklog}}. Because of the number of users I added it as {{adminbacklog}} and then HBC AIV Helperbot cleared the list like crazy! I don't want to glitch it, but should the FixInstructions parameter be set to on? mechamind90 22:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

New UAA template

I created a UAA template for use if a username is not of itself a username violation, but the account is being used for promotion. The template {{UAA|p}} can now be used. It renders as such:

Problem: This account does not exist or may be hidden.

It's not much different from the current AIV template, but it specifies promotion only account so that when used it's not misunderstood that the reporter is being told to go there because of vandalism.

Hope this helps, Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm the problem I see in this is that the others suggest that they might want to consider filing the report elsewhere rather than stating that it is a definite violation of another policy, and I suspect that most people who use the template parameter will mainly just check for username policy violations, and if there was such a blatant other issue they'd also block or report it to another noticeboard anyway ({{UAA|v}} says consider taking the report to AIV, for example, rather than consider taking this vandal to AIV). Occasionally there are reports which say that it's a vandal sock or something, for example, where {{UAA|sp}} or {{UAA|v}} would often be used, probably without looking at the contributions since it's not a violation of WP:U regardless. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

How about the following instead:

This noticeboard is for blatant violations of the username policy. The user appears to be promoting something unrelated to their username. Consider taking this report to WP:AIV.

How does that sound? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer just "...appears to be engaged in promotion, but without an intrinsically/inherently/blatantly promotional username." or something similar, because the username may have something to do with what they're promoting yet not be itself promotional (i.e. User:Dyerdata, who was reported to UAA for promoting at Troy Allen Dyer, but who's username is not in itself promotional, or the hypothetical User:Ks0stm music, who might be reported for promoting the hypothetical Ks0stm (band), yet the username isn't a promotional username.) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't we take promo-only accounts to WP:WPSPAM not WP:AIV? Seems like an overlap with {{UAA|spam}}  7  23:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The two are slightly different; something promotional may go on about how great their company is, a spammer will insert a tonne of external links into articles. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that promotional editing and blatant link spamming are two different levels of the same activity, but I disagree that AIV is the right place for reporting promotional activity. AIV is probably the single most watched board by admin, with the quickest response time, and it is meant for serious vandalism reporting only. Could spamming rise to the level of vandalism? Possibly, but I don't think we need an extra template for that case. If a username is not promotional, but a user is engaging in any level of promotional activity then WP:WPSPAM is the correct next step, not AIV.  7  00:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I only say because in WP:TW, when submitting an AIV report, there is a checkbox for "Promotion-only account"...I just assumed upon seeing this that that was the place to take promotion only accounts. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(←) Fair enough... but I guess when I am patrolling UAA and I see a name I always look at the contribs. If the contribs are nothing but numerous spam posts (but are not related to the username) then I'll block the user for spam right away. I can't imagine any immediately AIV-blockable account which would be better served by introducing the bureaucracy of having to re-report them at AIV. Just because an admin finds an account through UAA doesn't mean that a UAA block is the only thing they can do. If I think it's worth posting at AIV then I'm just going to block it... if it doesn't rise to that level then it should go to WP:WPSPAM. Just my 2cents.  7  04:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That was what I thought as well. I disagree that promotional material and linkspam are two levels of the same activity as you put it, however; WP:WPSPAM deals primarily with problematic linking, and WP:COIN is likely more appropriate for promotional editing which doesn't rise to the level of an WP:AIV report. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

My point is that AIV is a more serious venue for problems than UAA. I can't imagine any UAA admin telling someone that a promotional activity was not worthy of blocking under WP:U but instead should be reviewed at AIV, which is the wording you have in your template.  7  14:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with 7 here. If it's a blatant spammer, and not a username issue, he's blocked for spamming. Delaying the inevitable and making the reporter re-post at AIV is overkill and overtaxes AIV, a busier place; (I do a lot of AIV patrol too). -- Alexf^(talk) 20:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Jesusfuknchrist - 'nuff said

I really don't want to interface with this guy on his talkpage so won't do the usual UAA procedure.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Wknight94 ^talk 01:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

CAT:UAA

...Is, once again, horribly backlogged! With the help of a few others (admins and non-admins alike) I managed to completely empty it on New Year's Day, but, despite my best efforts, the backlog has slowly piled up again and it's showing up in CAT:AB for the first time since the clearout. If UAA regulars could take a look in there when patrolling UAA itself, I'd appreciate it. I'd also appreciate any help in clearing the current backlog from anyone (admin or not) with a few minutes with a few minutes to spare. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

How would a non admin go about doing this? cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 02:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a stroll through the cat, if you find a username that is obviously not a violation of anything or a concern that's been there for a few days and the user has no edits (you might wan to use popups or X1's counter for that, since deleted edits are invisible to non-admins), burn it with fire remove the category. It's a hidden cat, so it might be an idea to set your preferences to show hidden cats and then you can do it with hotcat or just edit the page the old-fashioned way and remove it manually. Any name that looks like it might be a vio (and the suer has edited), either leave for an admin (probably me) or report to UAA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do --Guerillero | My Talk 02:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I have halved the number of names in there and i don't think there is any more i can do--Guerillero | My Talk 04:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the backlog has been mostly reduced. There are still a handful of users left though. Hopefully, with the help of User:KingpinBot the category mess will be cleared up soon. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That's because I spent most of the night of the 22nd/23rd clearing it out. There are about a dozen names left in there and most of them have been added since then and are active (and legitimate) concerns. There are far too many frivolous "concerns" and some very WP:BITEy templates being left before they've even edited. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should remind the new users patrollers not to be bitey. (I think this puts some people off editing)--Guerillero | My Talk 04:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'll find the name of the MediaWiki page that displays the log and put a notice at the top of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The helper bots are programmed to see if a user is in the cat and mention it at WP:UAA (like this), and to remove the username from WP:UAA once it's blocked... Would it be that much more difficult to also have it remove the cat from the user talk page? ^Avic_ennasis @ 13:36, 30 Shevat 5771 / 4 February 2011 (UTC)

KingpinBot runs daily (almost) and removes blocked users from the category - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I wasn't aware we already had a bot on it. :) ^Avic_ennasis @ 14:24, 30 Shevat 5771 / 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Real username

Account Sukirti kandpal (talk · contribs) is the name of a real person, see the Sukirti Kandpal article. wp:REALNAME is a little vague, is this a username policy violation? I have dropped a {{usernameconcern}} on their talkpage. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 11:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Borderline case

User:SJ MSI has been adding a link to http://malayalasangeetham.info across multiple articles (Example:http://malayalasangeetham.info/php/displayActorProfile.php?a=Archana%20Kavi Archana Kavi at MSI). This was previously brought up as an EL issue here, but there is also a username issue with an account named SJ MSI promoting a site called MSI. Thoughts? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked, but how many times have they been warned for spamming? If enough warnings have been given, I'd say block for being disruptive.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think blocking would be jumping the gun a bit, unless the name is determined to be a username violation (which it appears it could very well be). The editor is communicating, not just blindly adding the links, which is why I'm looking for additional input. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, what I see is that the editor is trying to get consensus that the link he is posting is not linkspam, and not being very understanding about it.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"MSI" is kind of generic. Ask them if it is meant to represent the site; then ask if they can change their user name. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought that that may be the best way to proceed, but their entire editing history (60+ edits since January 7) is to add the MSI link to various articles. If they change their username wouldn't it still be considered a spam account? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It depends if they are asked to stop, and don't understand that what they are doing is wrong. I think they are acting in good faith; have they stopped adding the links after being warned? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

They have stopped editing altogether. I can discuss and follow-up on the spam issue with them directly, I'm simply looking for additional input regarding their username to ensure there are no confounding issues there. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

CAT:UAA... Again

I've just gone through and removed a few blocked accounts, as well as a ton of stale reports (A few from January!) to go from 320 to 140. However, I have a question: When is a report considered stale? A week? A month? I ask because if we can get consensus on a timetable, we can get some bot help here.

I'm thinking: assume we decide two weeks is a stale report. We can have a bot make a log of all usernames in this cat daily, then after two weeks go by, if that user is still in that category, it'll automatically remove them. It would be fairly easy to build and maintain. Just an idea off the top of my head - I haven't really thought out if there would be any errors with this idea. Comments/suggestions welcome. ^Avic_ennasis @ 22:33, 29 Adar I 5771 / 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea. I've just cleaned it out. Again. I blocked about 80 spam usernames and removed about as many non-vios and accounts that have never edited. Once Kingpinbot runs and removes the blocked accounts, we'll have about 20 usernames in the cat. Now if admins would run through it on a semi-regular basis, remove the non-vios and block the ones that are obviously valid, we could have a bot that removed anything that's been in there longer than a week or two. Trouble is, I've been pleading here and at AN for other admins to help since KrakatoaKatie and I cleaned it out on New Years' Eve with no success. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to modify KingpinBot if needed, to help out with keeping this category clean (at the moment it just removes indefinitely blocked accounts). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That'd be great, but we'd need more admins looking in there on a regular basis. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking that this needed to be done again soon. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to keep it clear... So, I'm thinking usernames in this category can be considered stale after a week. Does that seem reasonable, or should it be a longer timetable? ^Avic_ennasis @ 04:57, 20 Adar II 5771 / 26 March 2011 (UTC)

SERIOUSLY???

Now I have your attention, am I the only admin who ever looks at CAT:UAA? Even with Kingpinbot clearing the blocked users, that cat is getting 20-30 new members a day, the majority of which are actionable promotional usernames. It would be really appreciated if a few other admins could look in there every day to take the load off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Will try to help. I normally spend more time on UAA and the three filters (149/188/354) which have plenty of actionables (not to mention AIV and translating articles), but I'll do what I can, depending on time. Page bookmarked. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'll pass. I just had a look through the cat, and I was only able to softerblock 2 out of 16. Problems were: already blocked, no mention of that name or the name of a related business in their edits, no edits, not promotional (some were blockable for other reasons), a string of initials not used by the organization as an acronym or in a url, under discussion on talk page, and under discussion at RFCN. We've got plenty of patrollers, and fewer active admins than we used to; I'd rather the patrollers filter out the actionable ones and report them at WP:UAA. I agree with Alex that the filters are sometimes worth patrolling. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I got a polite note in e-mail from somebody that ArbCom said I was too bitey at UAA and should be less harsh with the spammers, particularly those spamming for their non-profit employers. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You should try and get that non-profit distinction added to the username policy ;-) --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

That may be worth looking into further. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I was being facetious, I didn't know policy originated at ArbCom - we should not have to investigate the finances of organisations before making decisions on spamming. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to give ArbCom or anyone else the impression that we're not open to looking at any unintended consequences of our blocks and not open to at least tweaking policy. Disclaimer: my general level of blockiness is middle-of-the-road. OrangeMike, was there room for compromise in that email in your view? - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't all that draconian; they haven't followed up in any way. I will admit that I've got a low tolerance for people with a bad case of "noble cause syndrome", and none for people who feel that being a NGO (or a government agency) gives you a license to spam, either via a PR person or by setting some poor clerical or intern to doing it. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a very low tolerance for spammers. If you think WP is your personal company website and do not care about the rules, you are blocked. If the company name matches, spamublock. If it is a nonprofit or a groupname and you are not actively saying "visit our site" or "buy our services", then a softerblock is in order. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We do have {{causeblock}}, which I think is the least BITEy block template in the whole collection. @Dank and others: there's a script you can used to mark blocked accounts. Most of the names in there at the minute aren't actionable, but give it 24-48 hours with nobody looking in there and you'll have loads, from Mike's noble cause friends to the blatant corporate spammers. Non-admins could be helpful in reporting actionable names to the UAA board which could make things easier. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to HJ's original question... Sometimes I wonder why people tag some user talk pages with a username concern. Me, I do it to give the user a chance to rename, if the user appears to be making a good-faith effort to be constructive. Otherwise I block 'em. I find myself using either the softerblock or spamusername templates, and rarely I have found the need for anything else.

Oddly, it often happens that when I tag someone with a username concern, some other admin will come along and block the user anyway, which kinda spoils the reason I tagged the user in the first place. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me know if I'm one of the guilty admins and if you'd like me to handle these differently. I look at a report at UAA, and I pull up a list of their contribs. If they have no talk page edits, just a few recent edits that promote a product or for-profit business with the same name as the acccount, I stop right there and softerblock (I always softerblock rather than spamublock if the account has few edits, except in just a handful of cases where we were obviously dealing with a serial offender.) In these cases, I don't look at the talk page to see if anyone has left for instance a question about renaming ... that rarely happens in these cut-and-dried cases, and even if it has, I'm thinking "good cop bad cop" ... showing them that we're serious about enforcing the rules may make it more likely that they'll be willing to cooperate. (I also softerblock nonprofits, of course, but I do more research on these, and sometimes I leave it for someone else.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dank (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Dank, you and Daniel Case are, I think, the most patient of the UAA regulars. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I was aiming for middle-of-the-road. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed your propensity to softerblock and wondered about it. In my view, if someone creates a corporate account and proceeds to write a promotional article about the company or engage in linkspamming, that deserves an immediate spamusernameblock. The user name is a violation, and they spammed. Clearly the user's intent is to use Wikipedia as a promotional channel. Based on past observations, I've become skeptical that allowing the user to create a new account will result in a behavior change. Such users are always free to request unblocking to rename themselves, in which case they are forced to promise to change their behavior. A softerblock simply lets them continue the disruption under a different account.

Most recent example: User:Pollystaffle whom you softerblocked just a second before I nearly spamublocked it. As a result of the softerblock, the user created a new account and proceeded to restore the identical article 4 times without addressing CSD G11 or CSD A7 concerns, another user complained about it on my talk page, and I had to delete the article a couple more times and salt it, as well as explain to the user a second time why this was happening. A few collective minutes of human life was consumed handling the situation, which wouldn't have been necessary with a spamublock. The user's new account Cfreeman666 is not blocked, but it remains to be seen if this editor will follow the advice I left and do anything constructive.

I make an exception when the user actually creates a decent article about their company, meeting WP:CORP criteria with good sourcing. It happens. In that case I'll softerblock the account. If I see the user improving other articles, I'll leave a username concern suggesting to change the account name. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Amatulić as I operate the same way. Spammers are spammers, not misguided souls. They come here to promote their wares, with full intent. They can always request an unblock as they receive clear instructions on how to do so every time. OTOH, borderline cases, when they have not yet contributed but the name is a violation, they get a softerblock, which of course is not a license to spam again, even though some may think so. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That's really important information, thanks. Two years ago, all summer, I checked the G11 queue repeatedly, every day, to see if what you just talked about would happen ... and the miracle was, it didn't, not once that I caught (except for a few that already had a history). Softerblock was successful at getting new users to self-select (which is important, since we can't read their minds): the ones who were here to promote either didn't bother to read the message, or read it, but heard the underlying message louder: "We're vigilant" ... and they left. The ones who created "business" accounts because they didn't know any better, or because their boss told them to, must have changed their behavior, or at least I never caught them. But I have no doubt that spammers are getting more sophisticated; if softerblock isn't working for a significant number of spammers, then I need to stop using it as my go-to weapon, because there are very few new accounts that appear purely promotional that turn into solid contributors, no matter what we do. Do you (or does anyone) have other examples of someone continuing to spam after a softerblock? - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. What's different about the Pollygrind article, Amatulic, is that an admin actually declined the speedy with the edit summary, "As reviewing admin, I think this at least somewhat informative, and not entirely promotional, so speedy deletion declined." It appears the spammer took that as the go-ahead to create a new username and try again. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that isn't how it happened. I deleted the article almost simultaneously with DGG removing the speedy tag (DGG's edit and my deletion time stamp are identical). DGG's edit was visible a few seconds at most, if at all, and unlikely to have been seen by Pollystaffle, whom you had blocked 3 minutes earlier. The spammer had ample opportunity to read my message on his/her talk page, then created a new account and re-created the article 2 more times. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Retired user

User:Retired user and User:Retired username are descriptive of Wikipedia things in general and do not seem appropriate user names. I don't believe either is actually being used by individials. User:Retired username and its talk page have an extensive list of sub userpages, which do not appear to be created by the named user. Please look at these. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Retired username I'm not worried about - they haven't edited since 2008 and appear to an admin who had their account renamed. The other one I will investigate. TNXMan 14:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

D'oh - the last edit for User:Retired user was 13 March 2010, not 2011. This was probably a renaming as well. TNXMan 14:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Cat:UAA

Please be aware that I am working on cleaning out the category, because of this I may shift some of the backlog to UAA. Cheers --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 20:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

A bit of clarification from the admins

What should we do about the really obvious corporate usernames? There's a bit of a mixed response here, so it'd be nice if everyone was at least on the same page. For example, User:Airzonapromotionsllc got a uaa-wait tag, while User:Paranormal 911 Investigations LLC was softerblocked; neither one had any edits. My personal feeling is that the most blatant corporate accounts (things with Inc. or LLC at the end, for instance) should be blocked the way obviously disruptive usernames are, because I view them as being blatant violations of the username policy. Obviously, I'd recommend a softerblock for an account that hasn't edited, but I'm not an admin so I'll leave that up to you admins to decide. I don't have any particularly strong feeling about it, I just want to get it straightened out so I know what to expect/do when I check the new user log. It seems like this is the only slight inconsistency, so it'd be nice to at least try to get some clarification. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should wait. We had a former arb whos signature looked like this: The Uninvited Co., Inc. If he made his account today he may have been blocked. AGF comes before keeping the spammers at bay --Guerillero | My Talk 03:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I intentionally didn't include the word "company" above because that has a couple different meanings; Inc. and LLC, by contrast, have very specific definitions. I wouldn't report a username that had company on the end until it edited (and that username especially evokes the other definition of company), whereas something like Paranormal 911 Investigations LLC can't be anything but representing the organization it's named after. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My personal take on this is that it would be pointless to block an account if it's never going to be used. I mean, blocks are meant to prevent a user from editing, if they never edit, then the result is the very same. Of course, this is just my opinion and I know that other admins do softerblock in these cases. I'd say that both results are in keeping with upolicy and I'd chalk it up to admin discretion... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we should wait. To use Daneil Case's example, if they have a baltantly corproate username but then start (constructively) editing articles about gardening, we can talk to them about changing their username. If they never edit and disappear abck into the ether, there's no issue. Only if the username and the edits are promotional should we be blocking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I ask is because admins will preemptively block usernames like User:Hayleysboobless for being obvious username violations (which I support). It's not that big a deal, I just want to make sure I'm on the same page as the admins here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's my take on this. Consider the following situations:

1. A company defensively creates a corporate username on Wikipedia without ever intending to use it for anything. The purpose is to prevent some unrelated party from usurping the name and engaging in activities that put the company in a bad light. In this case the company won't care (and may even expect) that the account be indef-blocked pre-emptively.
2. A company representative creates a corporate username for the purpose of promotion. These are generally the owners of small start-ups, or experienced PR firms who have been hired to create glowing Wikipedia articles about their clients. The combination of company name (username policy violation) plus promotional editing merits a swift hard block. I blocked two this past week (see User talk:Encontext and User talk:ProNeticas) both of whom have pleaded for unblocking while excusing their behavior, insisting their article must exist, failing to understand that their actions were not acceptable. I'm a great believer in redemption. But after obstinate refusal to understand and abide by the rules, I can't feel merciful.
3. A representative of a company creates a personal username with the company name, like "JSmith_Pfizer_Inc", clearly establishing an association with Pfizer, Inc. These accounts should not be blocked. For one thing, such an account clearly represents an individual. It also represents a company, a good-faith disclosure of a conflict of interest in the username. I recall a situation like this a few months back. The editor clearly explained his purpose on his talk page and behaved constructively, making only minor maintenance edits to his company's article.
4. Someone creates a role-account username like AppleCEO (currently there's a debate on WP:UAA regarding whether User:AmericanAirlinesCOO should be blocked). This may be similar to situation #1 above, where the account is created legitimately to pre-empt anyone else from having it, in which case blocking does no harm. Or it could have been created out of maliciousness, in which case blocking is necessary. Even if this account makes one disruptive edit and disappears, blocking does no harm and prevents further possible disruption.
5. Someone creates a company name account and proceeds to make constructive contributions. This happens frequently. Such users are often amenable to changing their username. A soft block may be warranted if the user is making constructive edits with a conflict of interest. The ones I have seen who are serious about being good editors will understand the reason for the block, change their username, and continue. I personally hesitate to block these users, preferring to leave a username warning instead, escalating to a softerblock later if needed.

In all of those situations except perhaps the last one, blocking either does no harm or it's necessary — and in doing no harm, the block prevents the possibility of abuse. A blocked user can always request to be unblocked and change their username. I've seen the granting of such requests have positive results. Unfortunately, the corporate requests to be unblocked that I've seen recently are from companies who clearly intend to continue pursuing their agenda. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Suck

• I just came across a username User:Russiandictatorssuck , which this username-checker missed; his contributions list is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Russiandictatorssuck . I saw just now that the blacklist contains various forms of "sucks", as in "[He/she/it] sucks", but not the plural form as in "[They] suck". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  You should probably bring it up on User talk:DeltaQuad who runs the report bot. - filelakeshoe 14:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• No need to bring it up on my page guys (though feel free), the list is there so people can edit it. I'll go add this now though. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• This should work. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

False positives

• The system just now picked up 2 false positives: "crap" in "scrap" and "cock" in "peacock". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• And "troll" in "controlled" (User:Controlledbychickens) and "vote" in "devote" (User:LionessDevotee). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden

• Search just now by {{intitle}} found 61 user pages and user talk pages whose names contain "Osama": Osama is a common Arabic name.
• Search just now by {{intitle}} found 14 user pages and user talk pages whose names contain Laden" or "laden": all but one of them refer to Osama bin Laden, and none to the ordinary English adjective "laden" = "loaded".
  • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the bot reported names - they appeared to be legitimate names. I do think, however, that the bot should keep reporting them for the next few weeks. TNXMan 14:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about "clerks"

I noticed this post on the bot-reported sub-page:

*Sharlenemarie (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
*:Matched: enema -- DQB (t) (e) 22:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried looking around for guidelines on whether or not non-admins can "dismiss" reports like this, but I was unable to find any.
Did I miss it, or is it okay for non-admins to dismiss it? (I was going to put :{{UAA|b}} on that particular one, it seems like someone's name to me).
Any comments/words of advice/etc? – AJL^talk 04:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think us non-admins could add that template an it would be fine. Sumsum2010·T·C 04:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the edit. If there's a problem, I'll find out soon enough. – AJL^talk 04:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that non-admins removing erroneous bot reports would be a problem for anyone. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I already do that for such reports as a non-admin, and a few times I've declined user reports that clearly fall under WP:REALNAME. Non-admins should be able to handle the most obvious no-brainer false positives and misfires- anything not quite as straightforward should be left to those with the tools. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Old but continuing violation

Almost every edit by NCFR (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) from their very first four years ago has been to promote their organization (with the exception of some vandalism which they seemed to feel was justified because it was a joke). They've added and/or edited links to http://www.ncfr.org on multiple occasions, from that very first one up to today. I was hesitant to report them only because I thought some people may object to blocking a username which has been around for so long. But I don't think they should be rewarded just because they've managed to escape scrutiny for so long. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see no reason not to block them --Guerillero | My Talk 20:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I've just softerblocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

For an account which has done little other than promotion and vandalism I think a block which gives the option of continuing under a new user name is fairly generous. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

UAA and AfC

As I understand his position, User:Daniel Case feels that when an account with an unacceptable corporate/organization username has only edited to request the creation of an article about themselves, we should not block immediately, in an effort to be less bitey. I, on the other hand, feel that this is a situation where the {{softerblock}} fits the ticket perfectly well, since in the long run that username is just not gonna fly, and the wording of the softerblock template is non-bitey. Comments from Daniel and others? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Usually if the article's rejected (as it often is), they never edit again. Look, no one's going to go looking for information on companies in project space, much less at AfC, anyway, and it's not like those requests are kept forever. They ought to be allowed to at least participate in discussions there about why their company isn't notable without getting blocked. I feel someone posting there is not really planning to become a member of the community in any event (I also feel the same way about test edits in the sandbox, as long as they aren't adding long copypaste from their websites or other pr materials. However, userspace drafts are different things, as they would otherwise be permanent). Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember ever dealing with this issue in the specific case where the only edit was to request an article creation. However, for usernames which are names of businesses or organisations I tend to block immediately if I think the intention was clearly promotional, but to gently inform them of the username policy if not. However, in the latter case I usually find that another admin comes along and blocks the account anyway. However, I rarely use {{softerblock}}, because it encourages the user to think it will be OK as long as they change their username, which in most cases is not so. Time and again I find users who have been told they can change their username subsequently having their requests for unblock declined for spam reasons. It is really not doing them a kindness to mislead them in that way. (Actually that problem is at its worst with {{usernameblock}}, which says in bold type "Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new usernam", but it does also occur to a lesser extent with {{softerblock}}. I sometimes wonder if the admins who frequently use {{usernameblock}} actually have any experience of dealing with unblock requests. I doubt that in five percent of cases is it actually true that the username is the only problem.) I occasionally make exceptions, but in most cases I either decide that an immediate spamusername block is called for, or else decide to just give a warning, either hand-crafted or {{subst:uw-coi-username}} JamesBWatson (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If a user will in good faith use the AfC process, why not give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them a chance to change their username? A day or so wouldnt be too bad. I feel the same way for promotional usernames that don't actually promote.--v/r - TP 16:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel similarly to TParis. I also think it's important that we don't drive away editors... but we really shouldn't make exceptions too often (ie. not blocking someone because they're a good writer, etc.). ceranthor 17:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think both Mike and Daniel have a valid point. Submitting to AFC is a tacit admission that maybe their article doesn't belong here and they don't really know what they are doing, but we can't just give a pass to usernames that clearly represent a company just because they use AFC. Discussing the issue with them or issuing a softblock both seem like reasonable options, with the caveat that they should be sure to use {{Uw-softerblock}} as the block notice as it mentions both he username and COI issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As I'm planning to start working some at AfC as soon as this implemented, here's my view. If the article is a genuine, good-faith attempt to create an article, even if it would fall under A7, I'll discuss it with the user. If, however, the article is blatant spam and/or a copyvio (that was actually the case with the only AfC submission I ever reviewed), I'll report it here. That will encourage good-faith editors while driving away spammers and people who could potentially do serious damage by adding copyrighted material. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I check with AfC when they submit and though I usually don't do AfC review work I do add notes for the reviewers when the new user has a spam/coi/company name issue. I block obvious spam cases and tend to do softerblock for non-profits when they are not overly spammy or blatant copyvios. I have seen a surge of spam from India and China in the past few months where they blatantly feel this is Facebook or their Website ("Welcome to our company site blah, blah"), so I check UAA and the three filters daily. Reading the above comments from DanielCase I will start to be more relaxed and less bitey in the narrow cases when they are not overly spammy and give them a chance at AfC, giving them the standard username/coi warning instead on an outright block. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Where'd the bot go?

Is it my imagination, or has DQB been shut down for the better part of a week now? Granted, it had its misfires, but it also had a number of good "hits"...many more so than false positives, I'd say. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's around, just set to shut off while I fix the routines in it, but I moved to a new laptop, so i've had to reinstall almost everything, and lifes been busy (and stressful). I'm really hoping that I can get it back today after I clear my normal daily activities for wiki. Sorry for the delay. -- DQ (t) (e) 13:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

To emphasize, the bot's health is seriously comprimised by the way it is trying to run right now, that's why it's staying off. It's not dealing properly with the wait list, and it's because the bot is limited to very little operation time. (For the full report please see the archive of my talkpage (on the bot subpage). -- DQ (t) (e) 14:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. We'll just have to muddle along the way we did before, then, and that's no bad thing. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The bot is in 'potty training' mode and could use anyone's help for cleaning out the backlog @ User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Testground. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Backlog cleared. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Clutter

Can I just moan again on here that this noticeboard is supposed to be for reporting blatantly inappropriate names, which when seen by a normal person on their watch list would make them flinch, and which most of what the noticeboard is currently cluttered with are not? That includes: blatantly offensive names (news flash: it's 2011, "sexy" and "badass" are not blatantly offensive), blatantly misleading names (e.g. "wiki admin") and BLATANTLY promotional names - that is, names which are website addresses, and names which are inambiguously promotional!! So User:Shiny Workshop Services Inc., with "services" and "inc." is blockable, but "User:SWS" is not, even if they have created a vanispamcopyvio piece at Shiny Worktop Services Inc.! That is a matter for a dispute resolution noticeboard if it gets out of hand, which UAA is not. "SWS" could stand for anything, and the fact that it vaguely relates to one of their deleted contributions is not such a big deal that we have to block the user. - filelakeshoe 23:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, comment retracted. Obviously my view no longer reflects reality. I guess my Wiki-mind is still back in 2008, when we had a noticeboard called Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names and resolved things through a more civilised method called "discussion". Can someone update the header to remove the stuff about blatant violations and make it more descriptive of what's actually happening, i.e. that UAA is WP:COIN lite? - filelakeshoe 23:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

We obviously have different opinions on what constitutes an obvious violation than others, and I suppose here and/or WT:U would be the best place to hash it out. For what it's worth, my view on this is that if the username is clearly the same as the company, and they're making edits to promote that company, it falls under promotional. The section on disallowed usernames on WP:U doesn't say "Promotional usernames are used to promote a group, company, product or website, unless they don't have Inc., LLC, or Company attached to the end", it just says "Promotional usernames are used to promote a group, company, product or website". If the username unambiguously matches the thing they're trying to promote, I report it. Sometimes, it's not immediately obvious, but it's still a problem. One example is User:Wotcc44; it doesn't look like much until you figure out that Wotcc stands for the first six words of The Way of the Cross Church of Christ Intl.. Sure we make mistakes sometimes, but that's at least my view; I can't speak for anyone else. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no question about it. A user called "SWS" creating a vanispamcopyvio piece at Shiny Worktop Services Inc is using a promotional username and creating spam, so they should be subject to a {{spamusername}} block. Reporting them is perfectly correct. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The top of the page says to block on the bigger problem, and in the case of a user called "SWS" the username is not the bigger problem, and not in itself a violation of the username policy. Many times I have declined such reports, but usually I'll delete the article and see if subsequent behavior will earn the user a block.

The username policy should be the sole document by which a username is judged. Only usernames can violate the username policy. Editing behavior does not violate the username policy. Behavior may be blockable on other grounds, and we have other reporting venues for that.

If instead a username like "SamSmith245" created the very same vanispamcopyvio piece at Shiny Worktop Services Inc, that user should receive the same treatment if he called himself "SWS". The behavior is what matters in this case. An ambiguous violation of the username policy doesn't give us free license to block. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I find that a bizarre interpretation of the username policy. If someone editing on behalf of the International Business Machines corporation uses the username "IBM" then that is a company name. If someone named Ivy Beatrice Moore uses the same username then it is not a company name. To pretend that there is no difference is nonsense. Also, it makes no sense to suggest that in deciding which of those two situations we are dealing with one is not allowed to consider any evidence other than the username itself. If User:IBM edits exclusively articles about the IBM business then that is pretty good evidence that they are editing on behalf of the company, especially if the editing is promotional in character. If, however, they edit articles unrelated to the company then there is no reason to suppose that they represent the company. Neither policy nor common sense says that we are not permitted to take such evidence into account in deciding whether a name represents a company. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That argument doesn't follow. IBM is clearly a company name, the company even identifies itself that way. Same is true for other companies like GM, PRI, ADM, and the like. The example presented earlier, SWS, is not even in the same league. It may be obviously representing Shiny Worktop Services based on behavior, but the username itself is not a blatant violation of the username policy any more than personal initials might be. The behavior is the problem in that case, not the initials. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Before Wikipedia started, I was in a Tolkien-language-related email group, and the man who ran it called himself "jcb" after his initials, and when I asked him about it he said that he did not know that "JCB" means anything else, as if he had not heard of the excavator firm JCB. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Why the bot flooded

It's not a bug, it's an issue with TS where the checking the waiting list part won't run properly, but runs fine on my comp, so I did it manually, which sadly means we now have ~24-48 (somewhere in that range) hours worth of waiting usernames because I couldn't run it yesterday. Sorry guys, -- DQ (t) (e) 01:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate roles/actions for non-admins

I understand that the non-admin clerkship business was a failure, so I'd like a bit of clarification as to what is and is not appropriate for non-admins to do on this board (other than make new reports, of course). Earlier today I reported Mvbrg (talk · contribs), whose only contribution, Martha's Vineyard Best Read Guide, was deleted as G11. I reported it here at UAA with the explanation that the username is an abbreviation of the article name, which implies a company/organization name. Waterfox (talk · contribs), who is not an administrator ([21]), then notified me via templated message ([22]) that my report was not accepted. After asking for clarification, Waterfox pointed me to a response he made at UAA before removing my report from the page ([23]). I took a look through the history and found that he did in fact respond to my report, but removed it one minute later.

My questions to the admins who watch this noticeboard are:

• Is it appropriate for a non-admin to remove/decline UAA reports that are submitted by users in good faith?
• If it is appropriate for a non-admin to make such a removal, shouldn't the reporting user be given some type of advance (more than 1 minute) notice before it is removed, so that he/she might have time to strengthen his/her argument or present arguments that were not apparent before?

If possible, I would like an uninvolved admin to adjudicate whether Mvbrg (talk · contribs) does warrant a block under the rules of this noticeboard. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are my answers to your two questions; others might have different opinions:

1. Yes, sometimes. That a report is made in good faith does not preclude the report from being based on a complete misunderstanding of the policy or of the facts in question.
2. No, because you could always re-report it. Removing the report isn't some uncontestable, final action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been a strong advocate in the past of non-admins helping out here. Although blocking is obviously restricted to admins, I see no reason why non-admins can't make themselves useful here if they want to help. That said, I don't think they should be removing reports (except those that aren't to do with username violations) without an admin having had a look, especially when it uses deleted edits (which only admin can see) as evidence. They certainly shouldn't be templating experienced editors as if they were acting in some sort of official capacity. I not infrequently remove reports that have been marked as inactionable by non-admins, and I think tagging/commenting first, then leaving it for someone else (preferably an admin) is the best course of action. Even admins should do that, especially where others could easily disagree. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

With Helperbot apparently down, I've been clerking the noticeboard by removing reports that have already been blocked. I've made notations on the Bot-reported items, but if I've made a notation, I'm not touching it, blocked or not. Anything else, I'll leave to mop-wielders. And when the bot comes back up, I'll go back to just commenting. I try to work within my limits, even though sometimes I blindly stumble where angels fear to tread. I'm presuming I haven't crossed the line since nobody's yelled at me. Yet. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problems with non-admins working at WP:UAA, WP:AIV, or WP:RFPP. I absolutely have no problem with them doing pure clerking actions, such as removing blocked users and tagging RFPP requests with {{RFPP|ap}}. However, I do not think that inexperienced users should be active in such roles. Finally, the templating was inappropriate, as that was a borderline case: "Mvbrg" is almost certainly short for "Martha's Vineyard Best Read Guide". Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm with HJ Mitchell and Reaper Eternal - my personal policy as a non-admin has been to comment on those items that aren't blatant username violations, and leave it up to the admins to remove them from the noticeboard. And in response to WhatamIdoing, no, I suppose removing a report isn't an "uncontestable, final action," but a user less experienced with UAA (or AIV, for that matter) that received the same templated notification that I received from Waterfox might interpret it to be exactly that. I'll eventually get over my ego getting bruised over a templated warning, but I still think that it was inappropriate for Waterfox to respond to my report only to delete it a minute later, and then leave me to look through the UAA history to find it when I asked for clarification to his templated warning. Side note: it appears Mvbrg (talk · contribs) has been indef'd as a group name. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I will generally handle the obvious bot false positives and the occasional misfires/headscratchers from users. Also, because I love 80s and 70s music and books (though I'm only 21) I'll sometimes pick up on a reference that a younger editor missed (my favorite was still someone reporting Shazbot[some string of numbers] as misleading; I love Mork and Mindy). I like to think I'm doing a good job. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like removing the reports I have declined myself, and, so I prefer to let someone else review them; a fortiori, I would never remove a report one minute after declining it, because that would not allow the original reporter to see why it was declined and there would be absolutely no oversight.

I welcome non-admin clerks, but, for my part, I believe they should only perform uncontroversial 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 clear-cut case and, especially, should not remove a report immediately after declining it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Salvio. This is how I work and think about this issue too. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is my personal ideal, although you might find it conflicts with my actions from yesterday: anyone, admin or not, who declines a report should leave it in place unless it's extremely non-controversial, such as a false positive for a bot. Afterwards, any uninvolved user who agrees with the closure may remove the report, admin or not. Makes sense? Of course, in practice, admins don't need vouching, but this seems like it could work as a good guideline for everyone. As for right now, I will follow HJ Mitchell and Salvio's recommended procedure. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 15:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that non-admins can only decline bot submissions. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Not that I am disagreeing with Waterfox's proposal, but it seems silly to me to develop a consensus to remove a name from UAA however an admin can block a user from the bot's list without any other user's opinion. Not that I am suggesting this shouldn't be the case, I just find it silly. I think the status quo is working well and there is no need to change a non existant problem incase it becomes a problem later. Right now, things are already working pretty much as Salvio has suggested and I think it should continue working that way without any written or consensus backed guideline. Admins and editors should and are equals. So in my opinion, non-admins should be able to do any work that doesn't require the tools to complete. That includes declining reports. If a non-admin declines an obviously disruptive username and the user is active, they will eventually find their way back to UAA or AIV. There are plenty of users and admins who will provide sufficient overlap to fix a silly mistake from an inexperienced user who declined an obviously disruptive name. My two cents.--v/r - TP 15:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

+1 for what TParis said, the most important part being that if someone makes a mistake, the report will find its way back eventually. Also, remember that admins can make mistakes, too. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 13:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification: Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RFC: Use of non-latin or unicode characters as usernames

I have started a RFC on a policy related to usernames at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RFC: Use of non-latin or unicode characters as usernames and would request that interested users give their feedback. Regards SoWhy 15:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Will go look. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Dutchshite

But it's been over 3 weeks already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.203.56 (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Over three weeks of what? Please be more specific if you have a comment or a request. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the IP is suggesting that the username should be blocked, however, the user hasn't editted in over 3 weeks. UAA is only meant for accounts that have recently edited. So the OP statement should be read as "I'm reporting User:Dutchshite but it's been over three weeks already."--v/r - TP 18:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand now that you explained it. I have given the user a notice about the username. In a few days it might be blocked if no response or CHU request is forthcoming, though he's probably gone. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I would just leave it be as a stale account.--v/r - TP 19:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

I want to know if we should change point number two in the header to "has made recent attempts to edit" (because technically those that are blocked by the edit filter are clearly promoting their stuff and harming Wikipedia, but they have not, er, edited yet because of said filter). TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 13:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any anti-spam filters are set to disallow. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

FartFoo & Policy

I think were getting more false positives by the minute with having FartFoo on my bot's blacklist...is it even a a policy violation? (Create this to discuss) -- DQ (t) (e) 03:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I would block the likes of "I farted on your face", but I wouldn't block just for having "fart" in the username. It does seem to be producing quite a few false positives, though. Is there any way to narrow down the filters to catch "he/she/it/they farted" or "farted on/at" but not "fart123" and other immature but relatively innocuous usernames? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Meh. This one word doesn't seem like a big issue, and is innocuous more than it isn't. The cases where it is an obvious vio can be picked up by diligent humans who can tell the difference between the obviously innocuous (OldFart123, or Farthing or any other clearly good names) and the violations (I fart in your face, etc.) --Jayron32 03:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That reminds me of a coworker who, when corporate email first came into existence, was assigned the usual first initial + last name moniker, resulting in an unfortunate combination: phart. Naturally, since this was a government organization, the name didn't change until the whole email system was upgraded and naming policy changed to include the full first and last name in the email address. If he got so accustomed to it that he decided to use it on Wikipedia, I wonder if the name would find its way to this noticeboard? I daresay the bot might have missed it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I found another bot failure

So I found out today (by looking at the wait list and everything) that the bot is removing names from the waitlist as soon as they get on it. This is because of an edit conflict caused by they way I built the software. So if you guys can just keep an eye on User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Wait (the history gives easy block links) while I fix it that would be great. -- DQ (t) (e) 07:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks good at the moment, should be good. I have merged the module into one, and it runs well within 5 minutes right now. -- DQ (t) (e) 07:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Broken Template:User-uaa

Is it just me, or did the blocking links in {{user-uaa}} stop working properly? I notice the blocking choices have changed a bit. For the most part the checkboxes seem correct, but the reason field is no longer auto-filled in. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's the new system upgrade. -- DQ (t) (e) 05:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's also disabling the preloaded block settings from the various block buttons. I don't think testing is real high on WMFs list of things to do before releasing new software. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Question

Would User:911 is a joke apply for this page? I mean, they aren't saying 9/11 directly, maybe they are talking about the emergency service number in the USA, 911. A lot of people are still sensitive from the event over 10 years ago. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 17:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Might also be a reference to the rap song of the same name from even longer ago. If I came across that username, my instinct would be to refer it to UAA as a disruptive username. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Look at these edits. He calls the recent assassintaion plot on Adel al-Jubeir "another disgusting propaganda peice". Granted, anyone can say anything they want, but I'm adding 2 and 2, and not liking the result (4? :P). He calls an assassination plot fabricated (same as iran) and 911 a joke (same as iran).

I'll ask him on his talk page. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 19:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd call it disruptive, at the very least. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"Semen"

• "Semen" is coded to be bot-reported. It should be taken off the list as "cum" and "jizz" are more used as a derogatory term for semen.

  Another reason to remove it from the list is that Semen is also a popular boy name in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

  • In Russia, "Semen" is a spelling for "Simeon". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• That made me wonder, do we have an article on given names that might be considered an unfortunate choice in a different country? That might make an interesting list. For example, a girl can be named "Sheila" in North America but no Australian would give that name to a daughter. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be interesting. Also interesting would be humorous material about naming lawyers' daughters "Sue", etc. :)   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily daughters. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Large removal of user reported violations

I'm sure this was a mistake but Jeff G. (talk · contribs) removed several entries from the user reported section. I'm not going to attempt to fix the error because I'll probably do more damage than good but I thought it should be noted. OlYeller^Talktome 18:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. All fixed. Thanks for notifying me of this section.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

bitching about the holding pen backlog

I know none of you are paid any more than I am for your work here, but is it too much to ask that you check back on stuff you put in the holding pen after a week or so? I was on vacation for a while, and didn't check in here for a while after returning. When I did, I found nobody had followed up on HP reports in over a month. Reports from Sept. 1 were still in the pen on Oct. 6. The majority of them were, as is usual, accounts that never made a substantive edit, but it took a while to clear an entire months worth of reports. Admins and other users were still adding reports but apparently ignoring the massive backlog they were adding them to the end of. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice the holding pen has the AIV helperbot header on the page but it's not one that helperbot7 checks at present. Would you like me to add it to the list? That would at least mean the blocked ones are removed automatically which might save a bit of time. Will (aka Wimt) 22:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that would be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

All sorted. The bot should remove any blocked ones now and add and remove the backlog template as configured on that page. Will (aka Wimt) 18:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. At least something came of this, not one single report was removed by a user from when I opened this thread till I cleared yet another backlog just now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

New reports on top or bottom?

It doesn't say anywhere on here, but on WP:RFPP, new reports go on the top, and WP:AIV reports go on the bottom. What is the practice here, and is there any place that this could be placed so that there is no confusion? - SudoGhost 21:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Normally they go on top but it really doesn't matter. If you use WP:TW or other automated tools it will place it for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)