Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Two issues to consider

There are two issues concerning this noticeboard that seem to involve divergent opinions:

Username violations evidenced by filter logs only
Username violations in AfC space only

I would like to see a consensus about blocking in these scenarios.

If a user has no undeleted or deleted edits, but has attempted edits in the form of a filter log that clearly shows a username violation, should these names be reported to UAA and blocked? I say yes, as a violation does not change depending on whether a human or computer was the witness, and we should be sending the message quickly that (promotional names) are problematic identifiers, and that it is largely about taking the principle of neutrality seriously. One admin I spoke said he will not block these names because filter logs often deter users from editing indefinitely. But many are not deterred, and I would rather not have myself and others monitor all of the dozens of these in CAT:UAA for activity when the violation is clear in the logs.
Also is the issue regarding usernames that have acted in AfC space only. It is a bit inequitable for some administrators to reject reports here because the name only acted in AfC, when there are others who are completely willing and do regularly block these accounts. What should be the standard here, and what are the reasons? If I recall, not blocking has been described as a courtesy to editors who are willing to go to peer review before mainspace, and because AfC pages are not indexed, thus their potentially promotional edits are less a concern. But we do not apply this same standard to editors who only edit in their sandbox, which is also outside mainspace and not indexed. Questions I have: do we want to be actively permissive about allowing companies to operate accounts here (which may have public ramifications), only because they have edited in AfC alone? And block them as soon as they hit a new site space so they can wonder "why didn't they tell me about this before?" And is it wise to actively allow these names to continue editing in such a backlogged project as AfC, even when they have edited promotionally ?

Thoughts on these two issues are appreciated. NTox · talk 04:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I have actually just come here to ask about AFC users, having just left notices to two editors about promotional usernames. I used to report large swathes of editors with promotional usernames who had in turn submitted similarly named AFC company article submissions. The approach to dealing with these reports were always mixed. Sometimes the editors would be soft blocked, other times it was advised to wait and monitor the situation. Since I haven't been quite sure if these users should be reported, I have not been actively giving attention to these cases while working through the backlog. Establishing some kind of consensus about how these cases should be dealt with would be most appreciated. France3470 (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there no opinions about this? I can summarize my thoughts more succinctly: (1) I think we should allow blocks of promotional usernames when the violation is shown in filter logs only, because every one of these has to be categorized in CAT:UAA and/or watchlisted to be monitored for activity for the next seven days, absorbing a significant amount of time for the people who do that work. There are days that I will mark up to a half-dozen of these a day; multiply that by seven and you've got a significant number. Moreover, if they end up editing later, we are merely delaying the inevitable blocking; it makes more sense to me to end their username (and perhaps let them make a new one) before they start up a big editing project. (2) I think we should also allow blocks of promotional usernames in AfC, albeit with the understanding that we will be slightly more lenient (i.e., soft blocking a little more often), since AfC is in part intended to be a learning environment. I think we confuse company executives if we directly allow them to operate a company account in AfC but then immediately block them once they hit a different site space. I think that's a special kind of biteyness, and worse yet, it encourages executives to say amongst each other: "as long as you stay in their Articles for Creation program, your marketing team is free to share the account." NTox · talk 20:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in agreement with NTox on this; with the additional observation that the kind of edits that filters block are themselves often symptomatic of people with no intention of contributing to this project in a useful way. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am also in support of this proposal. I have also been perplexed by these standards of blocking promotional usernames, but I do echo and support softblocks of promotional usernames in the AfC space. As a side note, I should acknowledge that even just having started volunteering for OTRS, I have noticed several e-mails from individuals representing companies who were presumably blocked for promotional editing / usernames. This proposal may cause more e-mails for the volunteers, but I believe that is much easier to deal with than constant vigilance over at UAA. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll reply over at the pointer at WT:U. - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

To me, AfC or filter caught makes no difference. If you come here to promote your business with a username that clearly indicates you are not an individual but the name of the business, that is a clear violation of GROUPNAME. The intent is the same as writing a promo piece in article space or in your user page. That is either a spamublock or a softerblock, depending on the severity of the vio. In marginal cases where the intent is not evident, or where they have not yet edited, I issue a user name warning. I check CAT:UAA daily for warnings that have been there for a reasonable period of time and the user has not acted, either asked a question on it or requested CHU. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Did I miss something?

Since I last actively did admin work at UAA the {{UAA}} template seems to have had acid dumped on it or something...I don't recognize it at all. Have there been significant changes in the way things are handled at UAA or something? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I always say it's good have a bucket of hydrochloric acid at the ready. I was the guy that made the changes to the template, after a long time watching which ones were used and which weren't. Then I tweaked a couple to make them more informative. I also added a few that were always being written manually that people seemed not to find the motivation to add to the template. Nobody has complained about anything thus far, and they've been around a few months. But yeah, I wouldn't think there's anything all that new you would have to be aware of as an administrator here. Nothing fundamental has changed; the only thing might be a small alteration to the username policy recently that says admins should not hard block promo-names unless they are sure that promotional editing will continue under a new name. NTox · talk 05:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, does that mean "promotional accounts" or "promotional usernames"? I've always cringed a bit when someone with a username like, let's say, "CompanyABC" is reported to UAA as a promotional username. The way I've always looked at it is that those fall either into "misleading username" for appearing to represent more than one person/a company/an organization or promotional account if they're making promotional edits about CompanyABC. I consider promotional usernames to be things like "Buy from CompanyABC" or "CompanyABC is the best". Promotional accounts I always hard block as the equivalent of advertising-only accounts whereas misleading usernames I soft block. It's been so long since I encountered an actual promotional username I don't remember what I've done with them in the past. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the username policy can be a bit vague; in fact that's something I've heard a lot. But I can tell you that according to policy, which is directly reflective of consensus, any username of which there is surrounding evidence that represents it (unambiguously) as a company name, is promotional. There has been some discussion to challenge this - people asking, is a mere name of a company really promotional? But that view has not had much traction. Therefore to report mere names like "CompanyABC" under the 'promotional' criterion is appropriate. As far as blocking goes, something to remember is that we try not to block them if they have been very constructive. If they're good editors, direct them to CHU, or have them create a new name. Most will understand and listen to you. On the other hand, if they've been bad, go ahead and block. The type of block though depends on the edits. If you have a reasonable belief that they merely started off on a bad foot and could be reasonably constructive under a new account, soft block. But if you really don't think they have a good chance of being good under a new one, hard block them. That's what the recent change in policy is getting at. NTox · talk 05:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

An account in the name of any collective entity, from a couple to a multinational, is inherently forbidden as a role account anyway; each account must represent one and only one individual human being. That's not optional; it's vital, for copyright reasons among others. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

DeltaQuadBot is back from break

Hello everyone,

I have temporarily solved an issue that has been going on for god knows how long, for months I would think. (See [1]) There will likely be a high amount of increase in the rate the names you see at the UAA bot section (after all, a manual run just posted 6 in a row). I would like to notify all admins modifying the blacklist, whitelist, etc. that the bot only supports 1 ":" per line.

Also this weekend I will not only be doing some code fixing, but testing. The only front end results should be skips in DQB posting on it's 15 minute interval, or double posting outside of the 15 min interval. I will post later this week to inform you when the maintenance window should be expected. Disclaimer: This is for DQB and not HBC AIV helperbot7. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Why the hidden revisions?

Various people have "changed visibility of a revision on page" Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention's revisions from 22:40, 17 October 2012‎ to 03:12, 18 October 2012‎ inclusive, so that not even I as an ordinary admin can see them. Why is this? These hidden revisions seem to be merely each deleting text (presumably the processed entry) and banning a username. Did they each click the small square opposite a line in the history display, not knowing what it was for? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Some of the reported usernames are so offensive or problematic so that the edits by which they were reported qualify for revision deletion (cf. CRD), so that only administrators can see them. Every time such actions are performed, they are recorded in the page's deletion log. As an administrator, you should be able to view these revisions by clicking the (diff | change visibility) keys. Other revisions will even qualify for suppression, but these will only be recorded in a log accessible to Oversighters. NTox · talk 06:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I reported an occurrence which did require suppression. I feel certain the missing revisions relate to that suppression. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I have a better handle on what Anthony is asking. i.e., "why the long list of revision deletions?" Yes, it looks like those have been suppressed, because they are not recorded in the deletion log. The reason so many of them have been removed is because that is all of the revisions in which the oversightable material existed on the page. To delete only the edit in which the name was added would make it visible on all of the following revisions. In this case, the Oversighter had to suppress the first edit, up until the edit in which 76Strat removed it. NTox · talk 06:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Close down the holding pen?

I noticed that there are very few of us if any that monitor the holding pen these days. Scanning its history, I notice the last time an admin explicitly blocked then removed an account from that page was in April. It seems like it's a straight process of adding reports, then removing them as they become stale, seven days later. Am I correct in saying that is no longer being used? Do some of you think it is best closed down in favor of monitoring via CAT:UAA? NTox · talk 02:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I for one monitor CAT:UAA daily and act on the blatant ones that have not had a user response after a reasonable time (usually 5 to 7 days). The non-blatant ones can be removed. I do not visit the holding pen often. Maybe I should (I'll try). Don't think there will be consensus for your proposal. We'll have to see. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it can still be useful, but you're right only if admin review it... Back about six months ago, if a new account was created and reported there with a name like User:TheCocaColaCompany I would have softblocked/promosofter immediately, with or without edits, as that was my interpretation of the policy. Because many admin, myself included, have been criticized for being too bitey with new users this type of name now gets a "wait until the user edits" response. And, taking that one step further, even if that same user now creates a user page that says something like "Coke" with an Atlanta Georga address many admin are now expected to discuss with the user rather than summarily blocking even though that is what softblocks are meant for. So in this case we have a name that violates the intent of WP:U with some edits (though not promotional) and it still seems like admin are expected to discuss with the user, rather than softblock. So, to the question at hand, if we tag this one with a wait or a discussing tag and a week goes by and nothing happens I would still think a softblock would be reasonable, so as to not prolong the inevitable. However I suspect there will be some who say that in such situation the account should never be blocked. 7 00:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

In the case of corporate names that aren't tied to an individual, I think it's a good idea to wait until the user edits because any subsequent promotional edits often eliminate the need for a soft block and create justification for a hard block. Non-promotional edits would still get a soft block from me.

Also keep in mind that some companies create accounts in their name to prevent disgruntled customers, employees, or competitors from doing so and potentially sullying their reputation. Those companies won't care if the accounts are soft-blocked with no edits or discussion because their strategic purpose was served by creating it, and they have no intention of using it. This may be true of company names that end up in the holding pen. I'd say soft-block them after a week of non-response. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Admin Backlog not Working

Is it just me, or is the auto backlog tagger not working? Looking at the code, it seems that when there are over 10 non-answered requests, it should be auto tagged with {{Admin backlog}}. There are currently 16 non-answered requests though. What is going on? Vacation^nine 04:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, the bot tagged it now. It took a while though. Vacation^nine 05:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Marking bot reports

I've noticed that a number of folks are marking the bot's reports as if they were put in by a human. As in, 'Please discuss this with the user', and 'Not a violation'. It seems to me that the work has become so rote for some that perhaps some basics have been forgotten? Remember: the central reason admins leave comments like 'Not a violation' and so on after reports is so filing editors can understand their mistakes and avoid them in the future. Then we leave the report on the board for awhile so they have time to see it. Since bots are not free-thinking this element is moot.

The other reason admins leave comments under reports is so future patrollers can understand the decision that was made about the username and take any follow-up action accordingly. But please let us remember that this is the whole reason why we have a holding pen. In other words, mark the report, then move it immediately to the holding pen, yes? And for unambiguous non-violations in the bot section, just delete the report immediately. I can think of no reason why we would need to keep them cluttered there.

It's best to keep the page organized. We already have a bit of an issue anyway with not enough eyes on the holding pen, so let's not exasperate the issue and remove the natural incentive to watch that page. Plus: again be cognizant of when a bot or a user is reporting something; occasionally I actually do see admins ask direct questions to the bot as if they are expecting the bot to respond. Indeed there may be cases where it is useful to ask a question under a bot report, but by all means it is probably best if you address the question to all of us, so that those of just scanning the page have a little easier time noticing what is happening. NTox · talk 22:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the {{UAA}} template's arguments were designed with human reporters in mind; perhaps we can have a different set for bot reports (there is at least one for {{AIV}} that is meant strictly for use on bot reports.

But to be honest I leave remarks like that not for the bot but for other admins, in case this is one where some consensus would be better (and just because these often don't lead to such discussions does not mean they shouldn't be left). Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It's the reports that require no discussion that I'm referring to—the obvious cases. If they're obvious non-vios, they can be deleted immediately. If they need further monitoring, but again do not require any further consensus, the place for them is the holding pen. We run into this a lot with the 'Wait until the user edits' situations. These are usually obvious. The user has not edited yet, and therefore there is nothing to tie the user to a promotional entity. There's not much else any other admin could add to that assessment, so we don't need an admin consensus. In such cases it's best to de-clutter the board and move the report to the holding pen. NTox · talk 05:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that reports marked "wait" should probably stay up for 24 hours at least, just in case there's something the original reviewer might be missing and/or they do start to edit. Daniel Case (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I would be okay with such a wait period, for the 'wait until the user edits' situations. If the user is going to edit, it is after all most likely going to be soon after the admin has marked the report. Keeping them on the page makes them the priority batch to watch. Still, however, I believe that the obvious non-violations (like standard real names, etc.) can be removed immediately. In other words, the ones that no competent person would move to the holding period at any time. The rest could wait a bit. NTox · talk 17:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that- I'm one of the guilty people (managed to forget the basics already).--Slon02 (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As a follow-up on this, I cannot seem to find the explicit guidelines -- are decisions on UAA reports exclusively left to admins? Obviously blocking can only be done by an admin but are non-admins allowed to remove non-vios? Salvidrim! 15:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Standard practice is that only admins make final decisions on reports. Sometimes there are of course IAR situations when the right decision is very very obvious, but almost all of the time you should leave things to admins since username judgement can be really nuanced and tricky. Non-admins are however encouraged to comment on reports if they have information admins are likely to miss; and it's always recommended that you clarify you're a non-admin so people don't accidentally think an admin decision has been made. NTox · talk 17:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the guilty -- I never bothered to read the full instructions. I thought I'd learn by experience, as it were. Hope I've saved more of others' time than I've wasted. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The bots are quiet

The bots have reported nothing in quite a few hours. It would be good if the nitwits who create "PoopTroll1234567890" type accounts have found some WP-unrelated use of their time, but I can't believe that this is possible. Something wrong? -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this, I have pointed this out to the operator of DeltaQuadBot. -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It turns out somehow, somewhere my password file containing my bot's password was unable to be accessed and therefore it was trying to prompt me for it. This caused all my scripts to fail. :( I'm doing a manual run right now and it should be back up soon. That's only the reporting bot though that is mine. So any other bots you will have to talk to the respective botops. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Troll

It could be that some usernames containing "troll" are named directly after the mythological being called a troll, and not after internet trolling. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

See my remarks below, this is another context is important issue. The bot merely looks for patterns, it is not able to read and understand the user's edits to see if they are problematic. The "troll" string is almost never going to find a "block on sight" username, but it can be an early warning sign that a user is here with bad intentions, that is why we wait until they edit and move the report to holding for a week to see if the are in fact trolling. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait until the user edits - without a message?

If we are going to wait until the user edits, shouldn't be still give them a username warning? Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. One of the reasons we use that template is to see if the username is any kind of violation at all. Say for example that you go to UAA and somebody has reported the name "Kayak" because they claim it is promotional of kayak.com. You warn the user that they look like they have broken the rules and then they start adding lots of great content to rafting and paddling articles. Turns out they are a kayaking enthusiast and they have nothing to do with travel booking at all. The warning on their talk page then has merely functioned to bite them, and they get a bad taste in their mouth. Then they leave for somewhere more friendly. A warning would have only been necessary if the user had edited directly about kayak.com or about something very closely related. NTox · talk 21:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree with that. Something I think is not clear much of the time here is that context is important. Only the most blatant cases require blocking or warning before even a single edit, and it is all too easy to misunderstand the intentions of a new user if you try to over-interpret the possible meaning of their username. AGF and all that. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"admin backlog" notice at the holding pen

I'm not sure this is doing any good. It seems coded to look only at the number of reports and declare a backlog if the number is too high. The problem with that is that generally reports are meant to sit here for up to seven days, regardless of how many there are in total. In fact it is marking the page as backlogged right now and there are no reports older than seven days, so there manifestly is not a backlog. I guess I am suggesting that if there is no mechanism to code it for time elapsed instead of sheer numbers we should just get rid of it as it is basically meaningless. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Immediate response is needed at AIV not UAA. Backlog is the norm for UAA and holding pen. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it from the holding pen. Whether it belongs at the main page is a matter we can discuss as well, but it is patently wrong at the holding pen. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, removing the configuration broke the bot, so it didn't operate on this page anymore. I readded it, but set the autobacklog parameter to off. (X! · talk) · @545 · 12:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I must confess that I had no idea the backlog notice was connected to a bot, or that a bot worked the holding pen at all! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That's why there's the hidden comment "Do NOT remove the backlog template and config string!" ;) (X! · talk) · @060 · 00:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I did see that, but I thought it was just saying not to remove it because it was an automatic backlog notice.... which if I had thought about it for a few more seconds would mean that there was a bot involved. I take it is not possible to set it to read the age of the reports? If it could be set to come on if any report is over a week old it would be serving a valid purpose. Actually what else does the bot do at the holding pen? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Not easily, the backlog is just for sheer number of reports. The bot does the exact same thing as it does at the other noticeboards: removes blocked users, comments on "special" users, etc. (X! · talk) · @290 · 05:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

And I suppose the reason I haven't seem it do any of that lately would be because I removed the notice. Well, I feel really smart now. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

foreign slang

We currently have like six reports of names that supposedly reference slang terms in languages other than English. I don't know how we are supposed to evaluate these. On the one hand, I AGF that the users reporting them find them genuinely offensive, but on the other I AGF that the users creating the accounts probably think the names are no bog deal. We have all seen how often it comes down to a matter of opinion as to what is offensive and what is not. All I can think of is suggesting WP:RFC/N since there is no reasonable way to evaluate these without knowing not only what they mean but the cultural context as well. That is a bit more research than it is reasonable to expect for a review of a username. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is suddenly much less urgent as it turns out the flood of reports we just got were all pertaining to extremely stale/never used account names. For the one instance where this is not the case I did refer them to RFCN, and I would suggest that in most cases that is the only way to evaluate foreign slang. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Another option might be asking related WikiProjects noticeboards! If it is Indian language, ask WT:INB or asking experienced Wikipedians who know that language, for example for Telugu Category:Wikipedians in Hyderabad etc! --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think a good idea would be if there is a word that is unquestionably offensive, equivalent to "fuck you" or worse that the maintainer of the bot be informed of it. It already has a library of foreign slang and when it sees such a username it reports it and automatically explains the possible meaning, making it much easier to assess. Anything less obvious I still say should go to RFC/U. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)