Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention/Archive 6

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


Simultaneous warning and reporting

Am I the only one frustrated by how often users are reporting names here directly after posting a warning to their talk page about the name? It seems like they mistake this for AIV, where they want to see warnings before isssuing a block. To me that is the exact opposite of what is needed here as it puts admins the akward position of seeing a name that is a blatant violation and could be at least soft blocked right then and there, resolving the issue, but they are hamstrung by this very recent message saying "let's discuss your username." It seems dishonest to suggest discssing things and then at the same time report them for blocking. I am sure the users doing this aren't trying to be that way but that is the impression it creates. For a few days there I was trying to speak to such users individually, but every time I seemed to have got through to one of them another pops up doing the same thing. Anyone have any ideas how we might do some education about tgis so it stops happening with such regularity? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. . .thank you for bringing this up. To be frank, I think the source of the issue is that people simply aren't thinking; they're switched in to a kind of autopilot functioning, throwing down templates without knowing what they actually say. It's very easy to lose a sense of accountability doing this because we don't have 'supervisors' tasked to check all of our work. That's why the best solution I can think of is to continue (respectfully & non-condescendingly) checking up on folks and communicating with them. e.g., leaving talk page messages with people who make this mistake (as you've been doing), perhaps adding a note to the orange UAA header, updating the instructions page, possibly adding a note to the username policy page, etc. While I tend to dislike user talk page templates, perhaps one could be created for this purpose. In all, a tough problem to fix, but one that does no service to newcomers. NTox · talk 20:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you make a very good point about the autopilot thing, a lot of users do not even seem to realize they are sending a mixed message. Perhaps we should ask if this could be taken off the standard installation of Twinkle? Now that I look that seems to be how it being applied most of the time. If users had to go look up the template they might <gasp> actually read it as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I've just made some adjustments to the edit notice for UAA that might help. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The problem is not limited to simultaneous warning and reporting. Some users go through UAA and put notices on the talk pages of users who have already been reported by others, no matter how blatant the username violation. I don't know if they're just trying to boost their edit count, or if they really think they're being helpful, but it is actually quite the opposite of being helpful. Before reporting a name, I always check the user's talk page to see if they've gotten such a notice; if they have, I do not report them. But I don't retract my report if someone subsequently issues a notice, which happens frequently. Every one of those has ended up getting blocked, so every one of those users has ended up getting the mixed message of "please discuss your username, and by the way, you're blocked because of your username". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it is two problems: the "autopilot" syndrome discussed above and a disconnect between reporting users and the admins active here. To an admin it is no big deal to soft block an account for an unacceptable username, and I think that is what most UAA regulars do most of the time because it is easy, and it sends the message that the username they chose is unacceptable, maybe their edits are too, but we are nice enough to give them another chance, all they have to do is come up with an acceptable username and come on back. That decision to block does not need a consensus before before being executed, we already have the username policy to tell us what is a blatant violation. However, up until today the edit notice and the header actually told users to drop a discussion template on promo names. I don't think that was the right message and I have removed that language. The soft block is a more direct and simple way to let them know that the username they are using is not permissible, and often when the template is dropped on a page the user never replies, we don't know if they saw and picked a new name or if they just never logged in again, the report sits in the holding pen for a week, and then nothing happens. Much better to just soft block and move on. If they come back with a new name but keep spamming they will be re blocked for that soon enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
It's also I think slightly down to the fact that the user creation log page states the following:

Editors whose username is a potential violation of the policy may be notified using {{subst:uw-username}} and/or reported to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, but editors are reminded of the need to avoid "biting" new editors and should not, as a general rule, warn or report accounts before they edit, unless the user name is unambigiously egregious or offensive.

- Happysailor (Talk) 18:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. It looks like we have really been sending a mixed message here. I don't know how to even edit [[1]] though. I'll ask around. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That text is held here: MediaWiki:Newuserlogpagetext. I saw you ask at WP:VP, I searched for the first line of text of the header to find it - Happysailor (Talk) 00:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Tweaked it [2]. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • And the nice folks at WT:TWINKLE have a fix in mind as well, a big red notice that will warn users only to use the tag if there is not a blatant violation, and to report here instead if there is. I'm anxious to see what effect this will have, I am hopeful these actions will go a long way toward mitigating this problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by the bot

  • The bot found this username and remarked:-
      • --- V4nd4l123r ... Matched: Used a attempting to skip filter: vandal -- DQB (my master / errors or issues?) 05:50, 3 February 2013
    • More informative would be:-
My first thought is WP:BEANS. However, if you still want to bring it up, you should post on DeltaQuad's talk page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Pacific

The bot produces a lot of false positives. I don't find it particularly difficult to just remove them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

ACC needs help!

Hello everyone, I'm DeltaQuad (also known as DQ), an account creation interface administrator and developer. Recently, our project has had an increased backlog in getting accounts for new users. Our numbers are currently above 250 people waiting for accounts on the English Wikipedia. If you could even spare a moment to do a few requests a day to help us clear this backlog. If this interests you and your willing to help, and you match the following description, then please do apply! Ideal users are:

We have a very friendly team to help you get started and we also have an IRC channel. If you have any questions for us or about the process, feel free to ask at the talkpage. If you can help out, we would greatly appreciate it. For the ACC Administration and Development Team, -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious, what are the dominant reasons people need to request an account versus simply creating one? ~Amatulić ([[User talk:#top|talk]]) 23:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Mostly, the prospective new accounts username is similar to or exactly the same as an existing account, and follow guidelines and determine if the conflicting account is still and or ever active. The next most common reason are blocks of various nature and extremes. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I used to have ACC access and would be willing to do it again however I would need to be identified to the Wikimedia Foundation first.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 23:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Dcheagle. Let us know when you're ready. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Amatulić, I might be a little out of practice here, especially where I deal mostly with CU requests, but people not being to answer captchas and collateral damage from blocks are the two primary ones I've dealt with. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I see. But Mlpearc's response is intriguing, as it suggests it is possible to usurp an account that is no longer active. Has something changed? My account name on every other project isn't 'Amatulic' but my preferred name was taken here, and it has had only 1 edit in 2002, almost 11 years ago. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

Please take a look at user:Cia'sPeeingpussy (yes, they are registered!) and user:Ilikecia'speeingpussy. - Cre81ve 22:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cre81ve master (talk • contribs)

Well, they're blatantly sockpuppets of each other. The bot didn't pick up on it because pussy means cat, I'll put it on the page. In future, please post reports on the page itself.--Launchballer 22:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I think by "pussy" they meant the other kind of pussy that is inappropriate. - Cre81ve 22:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The end of WP:CHU and what it means for UAA

For those that have not heard yet, the WMF is making some changes, detailed here that will make it impossible to do local renaming. All accounts will use the same name across all WMF projects, and all username changes will be processed at meta, presumably by the stewards. I'm not exactly thrilled by this plan bu tthis is coming from the WMF development team and is not really open to debate.

So, what will this mean for UAA? For starters, I think we should do our best to minimize the situations in which we tell a user that a username change is a good idea, emphasizing a "soft blck and start a new account" approach in most cases where the username is a clear violation. The reason is that the stewards are mostly not from the English Wikipedia and cannot be reasonably expected to be intimately familiar with the ins and outs of our username policy, which is probably the most complicated and nuanced of all the various WMF projects. So we could send a user to them and they could come back with their name changed to another username that is not acceptable, and we would have to send them back again. I would also expect that this new process will experience heavy backlogs, espescially at first, so it would probably be best to keep things as local as possible.

Looking for thoughts on this and any other issues we think might arise from this new situation. The change is taking place on May 27, so we have until then to plan for it, then it becomes the new way thigs work here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

fixed one of the meta links; sorry Beeblebrox Do we know how this change will interact with the prohibited usernames on the local title blacklist? Do we lose the ability to preemptively prevent some username creations? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I should think it would not affect that at all as this only effects renaming. Oh, unless a user changed their named through this process at meta and the new name was on the blacklist... Stewards have the technical ability to override just about anything, but they do not have the authority to ignore local policies, but I'm unsure if in the process of renaming a SUL account they would be informed that the new name was on a local blacklist. Might want to ask this one directly, I have already opened a thread at meta asking csome questions about how this will mesh with our local policies, this might be something to add to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
My reading of it is that the changes to unified accounts are broader in scope than simply disabling local renames (as is my question, so maybe it's not exactly on-topic here). Even if it is just that, though, I'm still concerned about this. Clearly, the WMF is pushing for a more hardline approach to SUL. But what will they do if a user creates a username on another WMF wiki that's blacklisted here but not there? My (quite possibly mistaken) understanding of the way it works now is that the software will create an separate-yet-linked account, with the same username and password, on all WMF wikis except for here, where it's blocked by the title blacklist. (Maybe it just creates it through the blacklist anyway right now, which doesn't seem like a good idea.) So, assuming that the account doesn't get created here, what happens with this new hardline approach? I see three options: the account doesn't get created here and the WMF's approach is circumvented, the account does get created here and the blacklist is circumvented, or the account doesn't get created anywhere and new accounts must pass all WMF wiki blacklists, which is ludicrous. I guess door number 1 is the best option of the three, but will that really fly? I dunno though, I can't pretend to know exactly how SUL works, so my premise might be mistaken. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure how stewards would be able to comply with the local username policies of hundreds of wikis, which may even be written in a language they can't read, or have unwritten nuances which can only be appreciated over time by working in the username area at a certain wiki. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have traditionally advocated for a "rename/abandon before blocking" approach as a matter of etiquette, but I should say I don't think that will be a good idea after this change. It is already admittedly complicated pushing for renames before blocking, as it requires discussion and motivating newcomers to read, understand, and follow through with the lengthy CHU process. Not the mention all of the follow-up on our part to make sure these users actually do the renames when UAA/HP and CAT:UAA are understaffed as it is. To have the rename process on an entirely different wiki, and to have it run by people naturally unfamiliar with our username policy, seems like a very bad idea. For this reason I am inclined to agree with Beeblebrox that we employ a "soft block and create a new account" approach. Perhaps we can still give such users the option to rename their account at Meta in the blocking template, but again I'm not apt to say renaming alone should be the norm. NTox · talk 21:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I suspect the Stewards will permit local admins to communicate requests to Meta to save users from having to learn complex templates (something we never mastered with WP:CHU). I also suspect the WMF won't care if en.wiki continues to use the blacklist and local blocks to enforce its username policy, even if the users are in compliance with the more lax SUL policy. MBisanz talk 01:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • For the username-related templates, we should definitely produce ready-to-deploy drafts right now so that we can get them up and running immediately when the changes kick in. I've thought about the issue of stewards not understanding local policy, so how about this: We still keep WP:CHU. Users themselves are not allowed to post directly to the stewards queue; rather, they make requests at CHU. Trusted users approve requests and then send them off to the stewards, who just have to blindly flip a switch since the work has been done already. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I think that we should change the templates immediately. People who get a template on a talk page today might not see them until after the change. As a temporary measure, link to both pages (this page and Meta). Once renaming has been moved to Meta, link to Meta only. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Is there any way we can ask for a slight extension? It'll be tough to fix everything pertinent by then. We may have to just resort to manual responses, which isn't that big of a deal. ceranthor 01:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Because this is coming from the foundation it isn't really subject to consensus, but if enough of the bigger projects asked for an extension we might get one. I'm curious if this is creating similar issues for the Germans, as they are another very big WP with an active admin corps, but I don't know a thing about their naming policies, it might not be as big a deal for them. I'm also curious if the stewards are really up for this. MBisanz has commented that he and some other en crats who are also stewards will try to keep things under control, but their numbers are limited. I'd be inclined to ask for a special election for new stewards to handle the workload if I thought that would actually work.
Or maybe it would, if we could convince the foundation and the community that this is going to create a burden the current stewards weren't prepared for. We could ask for specialist stewards, the same as we have on occaison had specialist admins. These stewards would deal with rename requests from projects whose renaming policies they were familiar with, and nothing else, steward-wise. However, even getting support for implementing that would take longer than three weeks, so I suspect for the moment we will have to just muddle through as best we can.
I think as far as templates go, we can't make the needed changes yet because we don't actually know what to tell them other than "if you want to change your username you will have to go to meta and ask somewhere, we aren't real sure how that works yet." At least that's the impression I am getting over at meta, Although there has been some research into the different site policies and some discussion about formulating some sort of global username policy, there is as of now no specificity on how this new process will work that I can find. I don't want to bash meta (since I've already done that so many times) but realistically the community there, other than the stewards themselves, is somewhat dysfunctional. It seems to take months, if not years to get almost anything done there. Much as they might come to resent it, I think it would be best if users from the individual sites (especially the big ones that are going to generate most of the traffic for the new process) to make sure we are strongly represented and this new process and policy is not dictated soleely by the stewards and the regulars at meta. That is not likely to end well for anyone. I think the best approach would be to try and leave as much control at the local level as possible, i.e. continuing to require users to submit an unblock request here if they are blocked for their username. If the new one is not a violation of our policy we unblock them so they can file at METACHU or whatever we end up calling it. So we should push for a hands-off approach, not an actual comprehensive policy for all WMF sites. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
If the user has SUL, then the user can request renaming at METACHU even if the user is blocked on this project, as Meta blocks are separate to Wikipedia blocks. The user would have to additionally be blocked on Meta in order to be prevented from requesting renaming there. Problem: Will Wikipedia be informed if a user who was blocked for his username requests renaming at Meta, so that the user can be unblocked again? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, now that we are to achieve full unification, either a username is acceptable everywhere, or it is acceptable nowhere. So we should not be blocking for username-related reasons on the English Wikipedia at all, but instead blocking globally on meta. If the current stewards cannot handle the load, maybe we could call a special election. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
How would you define such a policy? For example, we might not like obscene user names like "pornography". Problem: The Swedish word for "pornography" (sv:Porr) is a surname in German (see e.g. de:Arthur Porr). I would say that it's fine to use your own surname as user name. There are probably lots of similar clashes where a word is unsuitable in one language but perfectly fine in another language. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The current proposal for a universal policy actually says that they won't rename anyone who is blocked anywhere, but I kind of doubt that provision will stick around. I also very strongly disagree with the notion that we should give up local control of our username policy and count on a small group at meta to handle it for us. SUL is not intended to be the end of local username policies, just a simplified way of moving between WMF sites. And, I don't think our local community would support letting go of WP:ORGNAME, which is not at all universal. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course any portion of a real name should always be acceptable no matter how embarrassing or offensive it is in another language. What I was saying was that we should lean on the side of being more permissive, not globally or locally block people called "Porr." I would make this suggestion: If a user whose native wiki is not the English Wikipedia has a username that could possibly violate our username policy, but is not a blatant violation that could not possibly be interpreted any other way, we should consult speakers of that language to determine if the username has a legitimate meaning. Just recently I had to deal with a user called KikeFolan; he was initially blocked, and I unblocked him when I realized "Kike" is a Spanish first name.
Regarding WP:ORGNAME, yes, that is an exception to universal acceptability, I suppose. However, if an organization created an eponymous account for donating pictures to Commons, I would not mind if it made edits on the English Wikipedia solely pertaining to how the pictures might be integrated into articles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have just updated all of the soft username block templates in a before/after format at End of CHU/Soft block templates. The 'afters' are simplified and have a slightly more uniform style. Take a look when you can, and feel free to make any changes or comments. NTox · talk 00:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
    What do you think is the best action for hard username blocks? We could tell them to create a new account but make sure to respect our policies from now on, or we could require them to go through an unblock process and then request on meta. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    Hard username blocks. Unblock request first, though that will seldom be granted due to the reasons for a hard block (usually vile or nasty name). -- Alexf(talk) 21:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
    Obviously offensive names like the ones you describe are now a rare commodity; what I'm thinking about is more like a promotional username with promotional edits. Should we tell them, "go ahead and create a new account whose name is unrelated to your organization, and don't edit about your organization again" or have them request unblocking and ask on meta? (The latter is more similar to the current system, but I'm worried it may overburden the stewards.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I see. I was thinking of hard username blocks as nasty ones. What you are talking about is more the likes of spamublock then? I would tell them to create a new one after reading the username rules. Problem is, many create another unacceptable variation and back to square one we go. I still prefer the current system. If stewards are overburdened then we might need more stewards, or as somebody suggested a special quasi-steward helper group. What I'm saying is spamublock is serious and they should request an unblock first as we do now, then we send them to wherever the new request has to be posted (e.g. the replacement for CHU). -- Alexf(talk) 10:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Reprieve

It appears this is not actually going to happen this month. Apparently there is some concern that all these renames will make it difficult to properly evaluate the upcoming Trustee/FDC elections as the renames would be ongoing during that process, and the devs have a other stuff on their plate after that, so we have until sometime in August to finalize any changes here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hitler as a possible false positive

It depends on what area or areas they intend to edit in. If they start editing articles related to ethnic cleansing, World War II, genocide, et al then I would recommend an immediate indefinite hard block with no TP/email access whatsoever. If they start editing articles about athletes, filmmakers, scientists then it really depends on the manner in which they edit. If they edit such articles disruptively I would pursue normal dispute resolution processes. If they edit such articles constructively I would probably leave them alone (but with some monitoring to make sure they don't suddenly change their ways). --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

To discuss or not to discuss?

I am getting mixed responses on what to do when an editor has a promotional username when its clear that they have only the intent to promote. An admin told me that I needed to discuss it with each editor while another admin blocked the other editors that I reported which were completely similar. I am fine with discussing it first if that is considered the correct thing to do, but I can't tell at the moment. SL93 (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately consensus is not crystal clear on this issue, so it can all depend on what admin you talk to. As you implied, some admins prefer to block more liberally and others more conservatively. When it's clear that the 'only intent' of the editor is to promote, I think most admins are willing to block without discussion, but when it is unclear you will find more admins apt to discuss. NTox · talk 22:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Shared use accounts

At present, Twinkle's ARV module has four categories for reporting usernames here at UAA. They are "misleading", "promotional", "offensive", and "disruptive" usernames.

Do people think it would be appropriate to add a fifth one to Twinkle, for usernames implying shared use? How often are "shared"/"group" usernames seen at UAA? — This, that and the other (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It's actually quite rare to see a username implying shared use which does not also fall under promotional. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I had in mind things like school classes, organisational posts ("Secretary of" etc), etc. If it's not needed then that's OK, I was just wondering. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a good thought, but I would be opposed to adding that category. As said, most names that imply shared use are also promotional. When they are not, the sharing implication alone does not often warrant a block. Instead it's advised that you figure out whether the user is actually sharing and raise the issue at ANI if necessary. When they're not sharing, the best course is usually a username change or leaving it be. Further, names of the "Secretary of" variety usually qualify as promotional. If anything, we might consider adding an "Other" category, or possibly a "Confusing" category, but even those may be unnecessary too. NTox · talk 18:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Helperbots

The Helperbots appear to be editing while logged out...--ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

User:DeltaQuadBot

Reasons for blocking

Can someone explain why if a users "only edits are to AfC submission' this precludes them from being blocked? Theroadislong (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Some believe AfC should be a space in which users can make mistakes more-or-less freely. They say we should not punish people who have chosen to pursue peer support via AfC over direct publication in mainspace. Therefore, they say, we should at least attempt to get users with problem names to change them before blocking. But not everyone has this perspective, and there is currently no consensus on the issue either. Therefore the matter really depends on the admin that visits your report... it's discretionary. NTox · talk 03:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention archives?

Can you tell me whether there are WP:UAA archives and whether they are searchable? It would be helpful to know. I don't see why requests would be deleted after they'd been addressed but I can't seem to find a link to any archives. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
P.S. No, I don't have a particular Username in mind, it's just a general question. L.

No, UAA does not have archives. The closest we have is the holding pen, which holds recent UAA reports that require further monitoring. Other than that, you would have to look through UAA's history page. NTox · talk 03:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Question

Is Petercapaldi12 a blockable username; as it implies the editor is Peter Capaldi? Thanks, Matty.007 18:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think so, per WP:REALNAME. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Matty.007 19:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC is open

Feels like the time is right for a review of the policy and practices here at UAA. Comment from regulars, both admin and not, strongly encouraged. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

user talk page messing with WP code

this page is screwing with WP site code https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:HitroMilanese Nonartinfo (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not have any idea what this user is talking about. I have definitely reverted some vandal edits by this user. Hitro talk 20:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps referring to the placement of Image:Bouncywikilogo.gif? Dwpaul Talk 17:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Bindingness of decisions

How binding are decisions made at UAA and RFCN? If the consensus at UAA or RFCN is to prohibit the name, can an administrator override it and unblock the user anyway? Conversely, if the consensus is to allow the username, can the blocking administrator still make the editor to change their username? I've seen this happen once, and I would like to know whether this was in accordance with the policies and guidelines. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Administrators cannot override a consensus at RFCN. That's an "official" Request for Comment process. At UAA, the rules are a bit more fuzzy. It's a noticeboard, not a discussion board, so consensus is not established as directly. Noticeboards, generally, are going to vary in terms of how allowing they are of administrators to override decisions. UAA tends to be one that is more liberal, so you are going to see this from time to time. Whether that's good or bad would be a discussion folks would have on this talk page. NTox · talk 22:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Self-derogatory usernames?

  • What is current opinion about self-derogatory usernames? Currently listed is a queried username Crapaudbaveux, which is French for "toad-slimy". For example, in Renderosity there is, or for a long time was, an active user who gave himself the username "Sewer Rat", and he did no harm that I know of. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
There's no official rule on it; administrators tend to interpret these in terms of how "offensive" or "disruptive" they are likely to be to other editors. There is a level of self-derogatoriness that is generally upsetting, and another that is not. I for one would be okay with "Sewer Rat" but not with something like "I Deserve to Kill Myself". NTox · talk 22:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Pizza

Perhaps a test for names similar to piss? Dwpaul Talk 23:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but why isn't the whitelist working? It should be reporting "pizz" usernames while ignoring "pizza" usernames, if I understand the purpose of the whitelist correctly. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Frack

Has the bot stopped again?

DQ Bot

Does anyone else think it may be a good idea to have the bot include names containing "69"? Though not always a blatant vio of the username policy, they often are vandalism-only accounts. Connormah (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

LapBot

This account is a vandalism-only account or an account for reverting constructive edits. The username contains word BOT, which should only be used in automated accounts and it seems edits were made manually. -- SAMI  talk 09:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft namespace articles

I was wondering how problematic usernames are treated if the user has only created articles in the draft namespace. Currently, users with only AfC submissions are not blocked immediately, but are warned on their talk page. However, a sandbox entry can be subject to {{db-spamuser-sandbox}} and the user blocked immediately. Are draft namespace articles treated like AfC or sandboxes? --Drm310 (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This is only my opinion, but it seems to me that it's doing a new user who has an unacceptable username a disservice to let them go along using it when they will have to change it eventually. The more edits are made with the unacceptable name, the more confusing it is when it's later changed. Warnings may be more friendly, but they are only effective as long as someone has time to follow up on them. I don't see why the location of the user's edits should make a difference. AfC drafts or other pages in Draft: can be moved to mainspace at any time, and often not by the editor who created them, and this may go unnoticed. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Russian trolling

Hi folks, please be on the lookout for suspicious names that might be trolls. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

DQB bot

Welcome back DQB bot, let me buy you a drink. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 23:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(Minor thing but wouldn't that be DeltaQuadBot bot?) tutterMouse (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
We're long time friends :P so it's cool Mlpearc (open channel) 22:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A bug in edit messages

It is the heading name. Heading names are autoincluded in edit summaries. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 05:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe reporting instead at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention#User-reported will give better results? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Should we issue warnings to users for their username who have never edited?

Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Should we issue warnings to users for their username who have never edited?

Views sought ^ –xenotalk 15:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

In the case of offensive usernames, it would certainly save a lot of trouble if users changed their usernames right away, instead of after they have pages to move. On the other hand, in the case of promotional usernames it may be useful to wait until the user starts editing; it may make COI obvious. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Username issue or not?

Does Kuunstpedia's username warrant a WP:UAA report because they are obviously from the Kunstpedia Foundation? ww2censor (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

iOS App Account Creation

I've just noticed this designation appearing by new accounts. What does it signify?—John the Baptist (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Strangely similar usernames

Collected recently- all seem recent joiners- some appear vandal aonly a/cs other less so- small no. of edits etc. Any idea how these names are generated?

2600:1010:B01F:BD99:543C:B037:142E:4FA6
2001:1388:106:FB3A:CCD7:275D:2FE1:CDDF
2A00:D880:3:2:0:0:F60B:1FB7
‎2602:306:cce7:5510:2c59:a3b0:5c7e:a6be
2600:1011:b049:465c:9491:e9ec:b6d0:98a9
‎2605:6000:9d83:d800:404:a84a:11de:2070
‎2003:48:2d2d:a01:a5a6:64c7:7fc4:5ea
‎2404:e801:7458:c972:5417:d542:bbd0:8461
2A01:E35:8A2D:AF10:DD5E:934A:3B5C:40FA
2601:E:1980:532:5C26:7E74:892D:5BFA


Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Fuhrer

  • The substring "fuhrer" in a username causes a remark like this:-
  • The confidence is not low here :: "fuhrer" has one main meaning to most people, and unlike e.g. "piss" and "cock" it cannot easily arise accidentally. "This bot does not support the encoding in this username or filter. Please consider reporting this to my master." seems to show a coding fault somewhere. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I think it just means it can't read "führer" because of the umlaut, but "fuhrer" with no umlaut will still be captured. —Soap— 04:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Bot down

Just so everyone is aware, due to an outage on Wikimedia Tool Labs, the UAA Bot will be out of service until the administrators there are able to fix it. Apologies for the inconvenience. I'll attempt to do manual runs so the bot doesn't choke when services resume. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Bot error

The bot appears to be logged out, but still operational. Thread at WP:BOWN. — xaosflux Talk 04:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Double entendre?

It looks like he's been around for a while, but isn't Peter Coxhead a sophomoric attempt at double entendre? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet master User:Pass a Method having changed his username across Wikis

Opinions are needed on the following matter: User talk:Stephen G. Brown#User:Pass a Method. A WP:Permalink for it is here. I've brought this matter to this talk page because, other than WP:ANI, this talk page seems like the best place to address this case. The case concerns a WP:Sockpuppet master, User:Pass a Method, having changed his username across Wikis seemingly to make it less easy to associate his Pass a Method account with having WP:Sockpuppeted. Considering that Pass a Method is a very problematic editor, I believe that his English Wikipedia username should remain Pass a Method, but there is apparently a problem with changing his English Wikipedia username back to Pass a Method because it means that it will be a global move. Flyer22 (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

MascotGuy

I see a lot of -Guy usernames taking up our time here when it seems that MascotGuy (Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/MascotGuy) hasn't been active in a number of years. Has anyone actually identified any \bGuy$ flagged accounts as MascotGuy recently or is it worth removing this as a bot username flag? Sam Walton (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

On a sort of related topic, I'd suggest a massive paring of the username blacklist at some point. It seems like so many false positives are being reported that the bot page is barely usable anymore. The recently added "abusive editing" strings ("420", "Xx", "69") in particular seem like more trouble than they are worth: although they sometimes catch vandals, the vandalism usually isn't serious enough to warrant immediate blocking. So either the user is blocked prematurely, or the report just sits there. The filter should be focused on catching the worst of the worst, not every conceivable username violation or problem account. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with this. Pinging User:DeltaQuad who runs the bot. Sam Walton (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: I leave the editing of the blacklist up to the admins running UAA directly, and don't like to be involved, so it's at your discretion. As for mascot guy, there was one instance of the username with the same behavior, but CU couldn't solidly connect it to him, and could be another sock impersonating. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: Ah thank you. Are there instructions for modifying flags on that list somewhere? Seems easy to get wrong though I'm sure I could figure it out by looking at the flags already present. Sam Walton (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
No, currently there is no instruction file. For those who have coded or used regex before, they should be good, but the bot is quite sensitive. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'm sure we can figure it out. Could we get some more opinions on the above flags and whether they're worth keeping? Sam Walton (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

What I would like is a clear idea of which regexes have a very high FP rate, and whether these can be fixed easily (including by nusing the Whitelist). Definitely any entry which is present mweerely due to a single sockpuppeteer should be removed once the sockpuppeteer seems to be gone. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice...

... if the instructions for user-reporting names indicated whether we are supposed to put our listings at the top or the bottom of the list. Some Wikipedia pages want it to be done it one way, some the other. I note that currently there are new listings both at the top and at the bottom of the list, showing that people are confused and are guessing what they are supposed to do. That could easily be avoided if the current instructions -

<!-- List begins below this line. -->

were changed to

<!-- List begins below this line. Please place new listings at the TOP of the list. -->

Just a suggestion! --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It might actually make sense for new reports to be at the bottom for consistency with the Bot-reported usernames. Sam Walton (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
IMO new entries should be placed at the bottom. -- Alexf(talk) 13:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Then let's say so in the instructions, because that isn't what's happening. Revised suggestion below. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

<!-- List begins below this line. Please place new listings at the BOTTOM of the list. -->

 Done Sam Walton (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: Done but maybe not prominent enough? The two reports after you added this were both placed at the top of the list. :( Maybe it if was part of "List begins below this line," as suggested above, it would be more noticeable? --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, now it's just a mess. Could we have the message in plain text under the heading? Not sure if it would interfere with the bot. Sam Walton (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted to the previous way for now; only some users were reading the note and it became more messy than it was before. Sam Walton (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that Twinkle inserts names at the top of the section. If any change is made the ordering, then those folks will need to be aware of it. --Drm310 (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Then maybe we should just say "insert names at the top" as originally proposed - and as all current participants seem to be doing. I was looking for some guidance for those who are adding things manually; I wasn't aware of the Twinkle angle. Maybe that explains why adding "Please place new listings at the BOTTOM of the list" to the instructions has been singularly ineffective. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, wasn't aware that Twinkle could be used to report here. I've put a note about reporting at the top in. Sam Walton (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I said that, and now I notice my Twinkle-submitted reports are at the bottom now. WTF? --Drm310 (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: still seems to be causing confusion (well to me at least!) now. It still has a mess of mixed orders. Was it finally resolved? Can it be made any clearer, please?? :) DBaK (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Bots not editing

Can we get the bots to edit this page again because they've not been editing since yesterday. (They are sill editing AIV) MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem username?

User "Sturmgewehr88" (which translates roughly to "Assualt Rifle of the SS" (the 88 is -in context- a Nazi reference)) has a username that would not be allowed in English, especially with the SS reference. I have no idea how your policies work or who should do what so I leave it here in case someone wants to look at it. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Sturmgewehr88 Gustavail (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see it as a policy violation in the slightest. The user has explicitly stated exactly why they chose their name, and it has nothing to do with any Nazi sympathizing. Also, you've made no attempt to discuss this with the user in question; in fact, you didn't even notify them about this thread. I appreciate they've been blocked for this before, and were supposed to have changed the name... but I don't see it being such a gregarious violation that a demand for a name change be made. Frankly, that block came after the user had made a good deal of constructive edits anyway, so it was pretty bogus. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
like I say, I don't know how your processes work. The user was blocked on de; advised to cahnge their name here but declined. Policy is clear and those allow not-votes were incorrect. A name that is offensive but in a foreign language is still a problematic name. Those previous notvotes said that the user had to steer clear of certain topics: user patrols Hitler articles. The name is very clearly using Nazi symbology. The user name "SS-assault rifle" would not be allowed and this username is exactly that. Gustavail (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This issue is now being discussed here. Please direct all comments to that board. ansh666 08:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Admin assistance required

To clear the backlog, which contiues to grow. BMK (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

We're pretty much clear for the moment. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A couple things from the holding pen

I've been working on the rather long backlog at the holding pen and have noted a few things:

  • XXX usernames, by which I do not mean pornographic names but rather names formatted like this: xxxBeeblebroxxxx. I get why the bot reports these, but like any bot reports they should not be taken as evidence of anything other than the name fitting a certain string that may or may not be assosciated with disruptive editing. The thing with these in particlar is that they are very common in online gaming such as xbox live. There are so many users that in order to get a name they want that isn't already taken people will just put xs around it. The point is that unless they are vandalizing right then and there these probably don't need to go into holding at all.
  • On the subject of bot reports, the bot is helpful but it is also dumb. It only knows what it is prograrmmed to know. A user name like "Cristalin212" gets reported because it contains the string "stalin" which may be reference to Josef Stalin. Except that a human administrator should be able to see that it is just a coincidence and does not need to be sent to holding to languish for two months until just being removed as a false positive.
  • I've also seen some probelmatic "discussions" with users tagged with the Being discussed with the user. template. While I know not everyone likes using a template, they exist for a reason and just saying "your username may be a problem, see WP:UAA" is not really a discussion. For starters you have not explained what the problem actually is and if we assume good faith it is possible they honestly don't know. In fact in probably 95%+ of cases the user is genuinely unaware of our policues, which are significantly stricter than the majority of websites ot there. Also "see UAA" is not the right place to point them to. WP:USERNAME, the actual policy, is. A pointer to the relevant subsection that applies to their name would be even better. Remember we are dealing with new users here.

Sorry for going on, I know it's been backlogged here and folks are trying to help, but the holding pen has been a god-awful mess, and it's enough work to clean it up without slogging through a lot of junk reports, and I'm not going to block someone when the only attempt to discuss with them was an uninformative one-line comment two months ago. I've cleared November and December, so we're down to only reports from this year. Progress. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Concerning xxx usernames, those are no longer reported by the bot, so that shouldn't be a problem going forward. I've never had much use for the holding pen, personally. Either it's a username violation, or it isn't. If the username isn't a problem now, I'd prefer to just remove it. Someone will almost certainly re-report it when it's apparent the username is a problem. I'm not saying the holding pen should be abolished or anything, it's just not something I make use of. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
That's good to now about the xx usernames. The handling of bot reports seems a much bigger issue. Every time someone tags a report as Wait until the user edits. it ends up in the pen, and a lot of what I just pitched back out of there were, to me anyway, exceedingly obvious false positives. The bot simply isn't smart enough to tell the difference between someone trying to sneak the word "shit" into a username and somene from India using their real name that coinciudentally happens to have the letters s, h, i, and t in a row. Admins, if they are going to work this board, should be able to spot something like that oinstead of placing it on hold until they edit. The pen isn't really that hard to manage, the majority of reports that land there concern peopkle who crerate an account but never use it once. These can simply be removed a week later, but only if somebody actually bothers to do so, which it looks liek nobody has between October and just now. It's up to date now and would only require a few minutes every day or two to stay that way, but it's a lot easier to manage if admins are bit more thoughtful and assume good faith with users reported by the bot. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Good points, especially about tagging false positives. I noticed a few of those sorts of taggings during the past week, and I thought the reports were questionable enough to just toss and be done with it, but different strokes for different folks, I guess. There really should be a bot working on that page, possibly removing stale reports and other maintenance. Removing blocked accounts seems obvious and basic, but it doesn't look like even that's automated right now (unless no one is being blocked). --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
My mistake, I see that DQBot does remove the blocked accounts there. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

New strings for your bot

Hi. It looks like your bot should match these strings:

  • dix (using x attempting to skip dic+k)

urine

Skip filters:

  • urlne
  • ur1ne
  • vrine
  • vr1n€
  • ur1n€

moron

Skip filters:

  • m0ron
  • mor0n
  • m0r0n

bad numbers

  • 666

6969/420/yolo

  • 6968
  • 6869
  • 6868
  • 420
  • 4Z0
  • 42o
  • yolo
  • yoio
  • yo1o
  • ¥olo

tits

  • Titty
  • titties
  • titi

Note: do not match titanic/titanium.

suckfoo

  • $uck
  • Svck

-- Pikachu2568 (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

feces

  • fæces
  • f€c€s

Do not match faces.

nasty

  • na5ty
  • n@sty
  • nas+y
  • nast¥

-- Pikachu2568 (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

ownage

Skip filters: pwnage (matched: (o/p)wnage) -- Pikachu2568 (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

suckfoo

Skip filters: sux

the s word meaning poop (sh*t)

Skip filters:

  • 5hit
  • sh!t
  • $hit

-- Pikachu2568 (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

We need fewer filters, not more. If the bot misses something, a non-bot will probably report it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Whitelist request

After several false positives regarding "p125", "p152" and "p122", I think the bot should whitelist the following:

piss

  • p125
  • p152
  • p122

--ToonLucas22 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could add the "NO_SIM_MATCH" flag to the "piss" entry on the blacklist. That way, it will only report usernames that match "piss" exactly. Belchior90 (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Bot issue - not removing blocked users

Sometimes the bot does not appear to want to remove certain users who are blocked. It is actually removing some blocked users but not others. I have tried this on one of my own reports to see if it resolves it issue, but it didn't. It would be useful if we could get the bot to remove these reports itself so we that don't have to remove them manually. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In the future

I was making a plan in the future that my future bot, PikaBot, will patrol the page WP:UAA for reporting users. Check the bot script here.

Thanks. (That is the future, it does. not come in days nor weeks nor months but many years) Pikachu2568 (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the "devil number" (666)? Or 69? Or 999? If someone finds numbers offensive then that's their own problem; those users should not be reported here solely because of that. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
This sounds like the kind of task that DeltaQuadBot could be expanded to with more ease than a full new bot, but I'm not sure it's necessary. When users report a username they should mention why they're reporting it to help the patrolling admins. Sam Walton (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Blacklist request

There have been a lot of Gabucho181 socks with the letters "MLP" at the beginning and one with "Gabucho". Consider blacklisting this:

Gabucho181 socks

  • MLP
  • Gabucho
  • Pony
  • Geraldo Perez
  • x.0

Keep in mind that Gabucho said that he will be leaving Wikipedia to disrupt gaming sites. Altrough it is a bad sign, Wikipedia at least will be safe. --TL22 (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Its April now and Gabucho just made another sock. --TL22 (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
He's still here. Doing a lot of names with "PROSTITUTE" (capitalized) now. Im not sure if the string "prostitute" is actually allowed now, or if he's making them on another wiki that doesnt have the blacklist and then coming here. The latest one, at least, seems to be local. —Soap— 18:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
This edit kills that problem, even if he is going off-wiki. Thanks, Glaisher. —Soap— 18:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting instructions

Just now when I manually reported a username here, I followed the instruction at the edit window that says <!-- Add new reports to the TOP of this list. --> But I see that I was the only one to add my report to the top; all others are going to the bottom. And now I see that there is another instruction, also at the edit window, that says <!-- List begins below this line. Please enter new reports at the bottom. Thanks! --> Can we clear this up, please? --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I am talking about the edit window that appears when you section-edit the "User-reported" section. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Welll, since nobody has responded, I am just going to boldly change it to "Bottom" so that it is consistent. --MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Bot matching

Why not let it say "Matched: weewee" (clerknote: slang) instead? — Pikachu pika!2568 @ 09:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Should we start directing users to Special:GlobalRenameRequest?

Comments invited as to whether we should begin directing users to the Special:GlobalRenameRequest interface for straightforward renames. –xenotalk 16:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It can't be this bad around here, right?

Somebody reported Georgejohn69 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) to the project page. This completely freaks me out, as it is wrongly motivated. Here is what I blurted after that report:

I'm gobsmacked. Someone born in 1969 will never be able to differentiate themselves using their birth year? Really? I think I need to go read this 'policy' again - it's been years. BTW: What would y'all say now about name User:PerV? Hey, he's Danish, and Per (given name) but that's a name just like '69', 'perv' hehhehheh, right? No blocks, been around since 2009. Please tell me it's really not this bad here... Shenme (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The idea that any possible construction of any possible 'dirty' name from any known language is "fair game" here is appalling. And unworkable.

For instance, do you know that 'dabian' is a 'dirty' word in Chinese. Well, when you use a specific romanization of a specific variety of Chinese for a particular word. (Pinyin Mandarin Chinese 大便).

You don't know Pinyin? Horrors, there's a Dabian (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)! Oh wow, it's another dirty minded Dane! Or, you know, maybe they weren't thinking of Chinese at all. Looks like a computer nerd to me.

But that's the point. You can't know all possible variations of maliciously-derived names. You don't know them all, and if you strain at it you will make mistakes and cause people to wonder about your 'purity' if not your puritanical morality.

I strongly advocate a reversal of the purity mindset: If there is any possible 'reading' of a user name that is believably innocent, then wait to see what the user actually does. Today I wouldn't give odds on a new user PerV (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal). Likely you wouldn't even let them add the exculpatory note that they are Danish. (It took them over a month before editing their user page here)

How about Dixit (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal), an Indian name? You know how that can be pronounced, right? (That got an Australian radio personality thrown off the air) Oh... how predictable, telling someone their family name is 'nasty' somewhere on this globe. How small that is... the globe I mean.

Or... is it that the ever patient Diannaa will always post an understanding Wait until the user edits and I'm just hyper-ventilating about the quick-draw noms? Shenme (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't think anyone would ever block "Georgejohn69" based on username policy alone. Personally, I am very reticent to block a possible offensive username. "Shit" is part of many Indian names, for example. And I have a friend whose name is "Ficken", which is the German equivalent of "to fuck". That's why Diannaa (and others) puts those "wait" notes: a user named "Ficken" may turn out to be a perfectly good-faith editor whose name just happens to be slang in a different language. Or, it is indeed someone who intends the name to be that slang and edits accordingly, in which case they'll be blocked as a vandal rather than based on an offensive username. Not all editors here grasp this, hence the many reports of offensive usernames that are only minor, but the admins attending this page do grasp this and the risk that a good faith editor would get blocked is therefore minimal. --Randykitty (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Im really sorry that when I years ago chose my danish username didn't think about global accounts and what perv means in english. My username are created from my given name Per, and the first letter of my seccond name Vedel. Its a big demand to new users to expect they should know all menings of their username in all different languages. For my sake, my name can easily be changed into PerJ, it probably don't harm any english, so I can avoid to be blocked. But can anyone guaratee me that PerJ don't mean perv in one out of 280+ languages? PerV (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps "PerJ" means something far worse than "perv" in one of those languages ;-) Apart from obvious cases like "poopoooopoopie" and such adolescent stuff, usernames rarely get blocked for being offensive. Just have a look through the history of this page. --Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

DeltaQuadBot UAA module stopped

I've had to stop the bot due to some vandalism that occurred on the waitlist page. It has to be manually rescued and I don't have the time on my lunch break now to do so, so the bot will be down for 6+ hours. FYI -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Something wrong

Something is wrong with the bot-reported section. It appears in the /bot page but not in the main page. Vincent60030 (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Vincent60030: Fixed? -- samtar whisper 11:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@Samtar: Yes and thanks. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

SpamUserPage gadget

For admins who often find themselves deleting spam/vandalism user pages and then blocking the user: I've just finished writing User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SpamUserPage, and it might save you a lot of work. When viewing a spam/vandalism user page, it can delete the page, block the user, and issue the user with a block notice, all in one click. Plus, it's highly configurable, so you can use your own custom templates etc. with it. Please test it out and see what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Names of religious figures?

Are these allowed nowadays? Jesuschrist16 (talk · contribs). These names used to be explicitly forbidden, but I can't find it in policy. --B (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Haseebjan123 (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

What to do about frivolous reports

I've noticed a trend on this board (not sure how long it's been going on) to be way too quick to report names here. I see names being reported just because when it's written backwards and then translated into Fooian, it happens to rhyme with a synonym of a swearword. I see names that haven't been used in months or years reported. And I see "promotional" usernames that haven't promoted anything being reported. I don't see how the edit notice could be more visible than it already is, so how might we remind people that UAA is for blatant violations of the username policy that need to be blocked? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of the reasons why I (and maybe Dianna?) prefer to attempt to have a discussion with users before blocking. I'm also seeing that many users are reporting names that haven't edited yet or names who have already been warned. It's exhausting. Perhaps we need a better alert - or maybe something can be added to Twinkle or the reporting method to say "don't do this unless..." or something like that. Missvain (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Change some things in the holding pen?

I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the way we deal with the holding pen. I was babysitting it for a while but I kind of stopped around mid-May, it looks like User:Diannaa has been doing all the reviewing by herself since then. If we are having trouble finding two admins to keep an eye on an administrative process, it suggests there may some flaws with that process. It looks like there hasn't been a comprehensive discussion about the HP since 2012, so now seems like a good time to go over some things and maybe make some changes.

  • Problems as I see them:
  • Boatloads of obvious false positives end up in the HP because they are tagged with the "wait until the user edits" tag instead of just being removed from the list. This seems mostly due to users being reluctant to just say "obviously not" even when it is just a bot that is not capable of looking at the context that makes most of the false positive reports.
  • And most of the rest are accounts that have never made an edit at all anyway, so they don't really require any administrative judgement, just verification that they have not edited at all, ever.
  • Going over every single report, only to find that in about 95% of cases they have not edited since before they were even reported or not edited at all is tedious, unrewarding work.
  • If this isn't kept up on a daily basis it tends to become "too big to fix" and nobody does it, and of course it just gets worse.
  • Possible solutions:
  • An improved bot, that can review reports here and remove any report on a user that has no edits for some frame of time, say 14 days, since being reported. This would by definition include all accounts that have no edits at all. Any report on an account that has made any edit since being reported will remain up for review.
  • Creating a new rule that any report that has not been actioned in 30 days is subject to automatic removal without further review. Either a bot or any user may simply remove all stale reports on a wholesale basis.
  • Stop doing this at all, close the holding pen, and declare anything not worthy of an immediate block not be reported at UAA in the first place, by a bot or user. Any reports not meriting an immediate block are removed. If a reviewing admin decides to discuss the matter with the user, they can simply open a discussion with he user in question and remove the report. WP:RFC/N can still handle anything marginal.

Personally, I like the first idea the best, but any of these would be better than the way it is being handled now. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't find reviewing material in the holding pen to be particularly time consuming or onerous, as it only consumes 5 or so minutes per day. Far more worrying is the fact that I have been (on most days) the only admin to tend the WP:UAA board since I started looking after it in March. This task takes up to two hours per day (less on weekends). Around 60 reports are filed per day, including the bot report. I am not seeing a lot of false positives in the holding pen right now; I don't think that's a big problem. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, i know you've been holding down the fort more or less alone lately. After five years of on-again off-again tending to this board I find I no longer have much enthusiasm for it, and I'm always short on time in the summer months anyway. I thought I'd just keep an eye on the HP but that is even more tedious, hence this proposal. It looks like all the other long-time regulars here have also wandered off to do other things.
The overall point here is not so much just false positives, but the fact that for the vast majority of reports that end up in the pen, they just sit there for a month and then get re-reviewed, just to be removed at that point. I think if we had a bot that removed any report on a user that hadn't edited in two weeks since being reported it would cut the work needed to maintain the pen to just a few minutes a week. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Wait, an actual human takes care of that? I had always assumed a bot took care of it. Thanks, Diannaa! (actually, thanks even if you're not a human. Don't want to be speciesist.) Someguy1221 (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Illegal drug promotion

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Amerijuanican I really don't feel like it's right for someone to promote drugs that are illegal in some parts of america and is illegal. Don't want him banned, but can he please change his name to something else? Skateduderad (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any user name violation. --NeilN talk to me 00:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Marijuna is and illegal drug in parts of america that can get you put in jail. Skateduderad (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The name is not promoting any kind of illegal activity. We even have an admin named Bongwarrior. --NeilN talk to me 01:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
By going on the name of the illegal substance from my view point, then you are. Just my personal opinion, but I think promoting illegal drugs that can land you in jail is wrong Skateduderad (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks like we don't see agreement on this. Thanks for taking the time to respond Neil. Appreciate it. Skateduderad (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

How to handle spammers redux

I'd basically like to re-open these discussions from 2011 and 2012as things seem to have backslid into the "hard block" as the preferred option for users with a WP:ORGNAME violation and one single promo edit in userspace. I don't think that's the best way to handle it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

  • As one of the more active admins at this noticeboard, I think an editor with a promotional username shouldn't be hardblocked unless the promotional editing has continued beyond some warning. Many new editors are unfamiliar with our policies regarding promotional editing and should be informed of them before being hardblocked for violating them. For editors such as these, I softblock them using {{uw-softerblock}}, which informs them not only that their name is inappropriate but also warns them that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of their username. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I personally also prefer to use the softerblock option as long as it's just someone trying to write an article about their company or whatever, and not egregious spam. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I do half-and-half: when the single contribution is an egregious advertisement, I hardblock (even if there has been no warning, and no continuation beyond it). When it's an attempt to write an article about themselves, even though promotional, I softblock. If it's a non-profit writing about themselves, I only warn. Probably much the same as Jakob above? Examples: compare User:FreeWebsiteBuiltForYou, who wrote this (hardblocked) and User:Themargotshowmb who wrote this (softblocked). If it's a promotional username and no edits, I personally don't block at all, nor usually even warn, but merely watchlist the talkpage. They seldom seem to come back to edit at all. This is my current practice, I was probably tougher when I started a couple of months ago. Anyway, I'm prepared to change my ways. Bishonen | talk 11:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC).

Usernames "exceeding" character limit

The character limit on the English Wikipedia (according to one of the bots) is 40. However, if that were the case, wouldn't the account creation system prevent such accounts being made, especially since they can only be made globally now? (See SUL) Tropicalkitty (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Usernames can be well in excess of 40 characters. The 40 character detection threshold here is flagging very long usernames for human inspection, as experience has shown that quite a significant fraction of extra-long usernames are either abusive or disruptive. -- The Anome (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Backlog

It's getting clogged up on the project page. Kindly someone pls help thanks! Sorry for the inconvenience caused and have a happy holiday and Happy New Year! :) VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 11:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Passer-by comment: Probably a silly question, but why not block users from creating usernames containing certain words? And if the user has a valid reason for using that name, maybe a link could be provided where the user (as an IP) can post a request to unblock that name... Not sure if this is already existing, but you get what I mean? That would reduce the manual work here... Happy New Year! :) Rehman 01:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@Rehman: I don't have access to salting though. VKZYLUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 08:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Vincent60030, I think my post wasn't clear. By "why not block users from creating usernames containing certain words", I meant by the Wikipedia website not allowing certain words to pass through the account creation stage by default... For example, a username like "YourShittyContributor" will not pass through because the username has the word "Shit" in it... Is such a thing already in effect? Rehman 08:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be stopped at the account creation stage but instead picked up by a bot and reported here.  Philg88 ♦talk 10:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. I think that is where the problem is... If we can stop ALL such usernames from being created in the first place (by using some sort of blocked words list), and have a special process/page to handle request that genuinely needs to go pass the username restriction, we could save a lot of unnecessary work. Just my thoughts... Rehman 10:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
But there would be a lot of cases where a "bad word" arises entirely by coincidence; it would be unnecessarily bitey to force people to go through a special process for that. But there is already a username blacklist. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah I think MediaWiki:Titleblacklist is what I was referring to. So, seems like it's already there. Thanks for the replies. Rehman 09:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Is There a Button to Report?

It appears from the history that some editors are reporting user name violations by pushing a button that enters "Reporting [Badname]" in the history, and formatting the request. Where is the button? I have had to edit the page manually, but there appears to be a button. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If you see (TW) in the edit summary, they are using WP:TWINKLE to report the users. The reports are usually inferior to manual reports, due to the canned rationales. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
How do I use Twinkle to file a report? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#ARV. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. So it isn't done here, but from the user page or user talk page or in the user's space. I don't find the reports inferior to manual reports, because the canned responses are the reasons, and the reporter can always add a comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

A false positive for "gism"

New Template

{{UAA|ch}} now produces the following:

User has changed their username.

Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

False Positive NaHCOx

The bot report is a false positive. It's chemistry. If you replace the x with 3, it is sodium bicarbonate or baking soda. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Is posting here the way for non-clerk non-admin users to identify false positives? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's probably better to make a note on the report itself, or if it's really obvious and you're sure about it then hey why not remove the bot report yourself. 'Cox' is currently a very common false positive, and the report has been removed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to keep this manageable

What with the current backlog that tends to get pretty large, and the backlog in the holding pen full of unworthy reports, I propose a new operational policy for the UAA page:

1. We consider only usernames that have made at least one edit.

Rationale: Mere existence is not actionable. If an offending username has no edits, that username doesn't magically become less visible by blocking it. A prohibited username becomes visible to the community only by performing edits. The existence and visibility of a username that has no edits is unchanged regardless of whether we block it.

This proposal is analogous to our current practice with article protection: we don't protect articles pre-emptively, we protect to stop disruption. Similarly we don't need to block pre-emptively; this is a waste of time. We block to stop disruption. And if we don't need to block pre-emptively, we don't even need to see usernames that have no activity. A user can become disruptive only by editing, not by existing.

I have known of companies who create an account on Wikipedia with no intention to use it, simply because they want to avoid the bad PR that may happen if some disgruntled person creates an account with the company's name and proceeds to make the company look bad. Blocking such usernames simply wastes administrator time.

2. Monitoring and pruning is performed by a bot.

The bot that currently reports usernames can put them in its own holding pen that requires no administrative action, scan them every day or so for activity, and if any username on its list has editing activity, only then would the bot report it. The bot can expire usernames from its own internal list after a few months.

Similarly, another bot (or the same one) can scan editor submissions of usernames that may violate policy, and move inactive ones to its internal monitoring list. We already have a bot (which sometimes works) that automatically removes usernames from the list when they are blocked. Similarly, inactive usernames could be moved to an internal holding pen when they are scanned and found to have no edits.

In this way, policy #1 is maintained. Editors won't be prohibited for proposing usernames for blocking; if the username has no edits, the bot simply files it away for monitoring. The end result is a list that is manageable with a higher proportion of actionable usernames. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with number 2. Number 1 I have to disagree with. We will for example block "I hate <insert ethnic group here>" before they edit in a perfect world. The reason we block before they edit is to prevent them from editing with the offensive name. HighInBC 08:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe that the majority of usernames like that don't make edits anyway. As I said, merely existing is not disruptive, the username exists even when blocked. The small minority of those offensive usernames that actually make an edit would be quickly blocked as a result of #2.
Point #2 can be altered to alleviate your concern: the bot will move an editor-reported username to its internal list after 2 days of being reported. That will give administrators a chance to block truly offensive ones before they edit. If an offensive username is created and has no edits after 2 days, it likely won't have edits ever. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with #1. This list is supposed to be for reports of usernames which users feel are obvious enough to warrant immediate blocks without prior warning. We may be getting too many reports of borderline names, but the solution is not to give usernames that clearly violate the username policy a free pass until they edit. It is not correct that "mere existence is not actionable," in fact the username policy clearly states that in some cases usernames should not only be immediately blocked but even oversighted WP:BLPABUSE. This talk page is not the place to attempt to rewrite the username policy. Meters (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@Meters: I'm not suggesting rewriting the username policy, and even so, policies are not carved in stone. In the context of this discussion, we're talking about ways to make the backlog manageable. You can interpret point #1 as dealing only with usernames that haven't had any activity for processing by the bot. There is nothing preventing us from blocking users that haven't made edits. The bot would simply let them stay for a few days before moving them to a holding pen (point #2). My purpose in proposing #1 is that, often, there is no need to block such users. Only a minority of such usernames would qualify for an immediate block. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the distinction. Whether we are discussing usernames listed by the bot or by other users, your rationale for #1 ("mere existence is not actionable") is not valid. Yes, some problematic usernames may not be worth blocking unless they make edits, but others should be blocked on sight, regardless of how they are reported, or whether they have edited. We don't want any edits in the logs by, say, User:DeathtoX where X is any recognizable real religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, public person, Wikipedia username, etc., and the written policy is to block such names on sight. Policy's not written in stone, but I don't see any reason to change to change this, and I read your fundamental argument that mere existence is not actionable as a change to policy, at least with respect to WP:BLPABUSE. If you would qualify your rationale to be non-absolute I would be much more comfortable. Meters (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with number 1. There's just no point in blocking usernames that haven't edited. Blocks are for preventing editing. Now, of course "I hate <insert ethnic group here>" names are bad, but as Amatulic pointed out, blocking them doesn't make them go away. I don't see why they can't just be deleted from the new accounts log and/or ListUsers (is that possible?) if they're that bad. 2 is also reasonable. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a point, let me lay it out:

Scenario 1: User:GodHates<somegroup> creates an account, we block them, that is the end.
Scenario 2: User:GodHates<somegroup> creates an account, we ignore it, they never edit... then end?
Scenario 3: User:GodHates<somegroup> creates an account, we ignore it, later they post something nasty to a user who is a member of <somegroup>, we block them, that is the end.

You will notice in both scenarios 1 and 3 the user gets blocked, but in scenario 3 one of our users has a negative experience. The only thing we gain from not blocking is that we... don't block in scenario 2. I don't know about you but the block button is pretty easy for me and when I see a name that indicates a likelihood of disruption I block it before they abuse someone not after.

The board is for obvious violations, not just accounts that have been disruptive in the past. This seems like two very different proposals with very different merits and faults, they should be considered separately. HighInBC 01:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that's a point, but couldn't we just rename such users to "Renamed Account 123" or similar? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Question mark?

Names with question marks in them seem to break some talk page links, but not others. I don't know if this disruption is the fault of the name or the link escaping, but I just thought I'd ask about it... —PC-XT+ 04:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of pending report and re-reporting of redundant reports?

Hello, there was smth unusual going on yesterday the 15th, I would like to ask what happened exactly, if anybody knows? Step-by-Step:

  • 20:34: Bishonen blocks Schlong Chinker [6];
  • 20:36: Bishonen blocks Eatdookieshoots [7];
  • 20:46: Hello71 reports (apparently manually?) three bits of info [8]:
    • inserts a "no" for a given username report. I am not sure, but I thought this final decision / action is limited to admins only (even if it seems a good faith edit)? In this regard, I myself could report Usernames to UAA and then give them a "yes" myself?
    • re-introduces my Eatdookieshoots report (which had been blocked already at that moment, as described above);
    • overwrites my (new and at that moment still pending) report of Pinkypoo345 to instead become a report of Schlong Chinker once more, appearing as if again by its original reporter, User:Mr. Guye, also with its original time: 19:22. This name also had been blocked already at the moment of re-reporting.

Netto result: Double work for admins, removal of a still pending Username report by overwriting, re-reporting of already blocked Usernames (I take it, ten minutes inbetween is long enough to know), and a "no" that might actually require an admin instead of an editor? Could anyone reconstruct what was the rationale behind this, please? Horseless Headman (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC).

  • 20:46: Hello71 reports (apparently manually?) three bits of info 1:
    • inserts a "no" for a given username report. I am not sure, but I thought this final decision / action is limited to admins only (even if it seems a good faith edit)? In this regard, I myself could report Usernames to UAA and then give them a "yes" myself?
There is, in fact, no "yes" in Template:UAA, presumably for the reason that there is no use for such a template. Either the username is violating the username policy, so it should be blocked, or it is not violating the username policy, so it should not be blocked (and a response should be posted). WRT "should non-admins be able to respond on UAA", this has been discussed on the WT multiple times with no conclusive answer. If you want to re-open that discussion, feel free to create a new section.
    • re-introduces my Eatdookieshoots report (which had been blocked already at that moment, as described above);
    • overwrites my (new and at that moment still pending) report of Pinkypoo345 to instead become a report of Schlong Chinker once more, appearing as if again by its original reporter, User:Mr. Guye, also with its original time: 19:22. This name also had been blocked already at the moment of re-reporting.
I am unclear as to how this happened. It was certainly not intentional, as opposed to the comment above, but I would conjecture may have been caused by a sloppy merge on my part. To rectify this, I will endeavour to be more careful in reviewing my merges in future.
They were not in fact blocked again; as the edit summary implies, the reports were removed (again) because the users were blocked for that duration at the time of the removal.
1 Links removed due to apparent limitations in Template:Talkquote. If anyone is more knowledgeable (or feels like going through the talkquote implementation), feel free to restore. ⁓ Hello71 13:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, so the "2nd time" the edit summaries say "blocked by ..." again, instead of smth like "list removal of already blocked ....". Oh well, I am sure this does not happen very often anyway. Bishonen, no my main concern was the exchange of a still pending username with a username that was already blocked, effectively removing the pending username from the UAA list prematurely. As Hello71 said, it was a merge error anyway, so case closed I guess. Horseless Headman (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC).

Filter 148

Is filter 148 failing? As of today, the last log entries are from February 13th. --Drm310 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears to have been turned off on Feb 13 as a result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Fairly_serious_filter_bug. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Just making sure...

Non-admins are allowed to report false positives by the bot, right? There have been several today. Regards, --Ches (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would have a problem with non-admins tagging such reports as false positives. Personally, I would have no problem with non-admins simply removing in good faith obvious false positive bot reports (but others might). -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Only just seen this Edgar181 but thank you for your reply. --Ches (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Another example of "Hitler" as a false positive

Reverting to old version

Mohenjo Daro (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It is come to my notice that Someonedifferent001 is reverting positive and sourced edits to his own versions despite enough edit summaries mentioned by me. Arjann (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Noinclude: what a mess !

Hello. At the beginning of Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, we have: 

<!--PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS BOARD AUTOMATICALLY SETS THE ADMIN BACKLOG FLAG WHEN A CERTAIN THRESHOLD IS MET -->
<!-- Also, please do not remove the following coding without discussion at [[WT:UAA]] first, as certain elements of the board could be adversely affected. -->
<noinclude>{{/Header}}

<noinclude>{{noadminbacklog}}</noinclude><!-- v2.0.27 RemoveBlocked=On MergeDuplicates=On AutoMark=On FixInstructireons=Off AutoBacklog=On AddLimit=10 RemoveLimit=5 -->
</noinclude>

<center><u>'''Note'''</u>: Patrollers are kindly asked to monitor usernames listed at <span class="plainlinks">
[{{fullurl:Special:AbuseLog|wpSearchFilter=102}} '''Filter 102'''], [{{fullurl:Special:AbuseLog|wpSearchFilter=148}} '''Filter 148'''], [{{fullurl:Special:AbuseLog|wpSearchFilter=149}} '''Filter 149'''], [{{fullurl:Special:AbuseLog|wpSearchFilter=354}} '''Filter 354'''] <sup>([{{fullurl:Special:RecentChanges|tagfilter=Possible+self+promotion+in+userspace}} tags])</sup></span>, [[WP:UAA/HP]], and [[CAT:UAA]].</center>

<noinclude>[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]] [[Category:Wikipedia noticeboards]]
[[Category:Wikipedia user conduct]]
</noinclude> 

{{No admin backlog}}<!-- v2.0.15 RemoveBlocked=On MergeDuplicates=Off AutoMark=Off FixInstructions=Off AutoBacklog=Off AddLimit=5 RemoveLimit=2 -->

{{Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot}}

And this code cannot be correct. I have moved the orphan </noinclude> in order to balance the <noinclude>{{/Header}}. It remains that two {{noadminbacklog}} are on conflict, by their very existence, and also by the way they are or not included in transclusions. What to do with them ? Pldx1 (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Web29com

I'm thinking that the single purpose account Web29com has too much of a resenblance to web29.com, which returns search results as an SEO company. Feel free to delete this request if I am wrong.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Backlog bot

Can the bot that adds and removes the backlog notice be turned on, since this page is often very backlogged? --Laber□T 13:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Same thing for the "holding pen". --Laber□T 13:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

"Violation of the username policy as a..." template proposal

@Anarchyte: I propose that we make a template for the UAA system. I don't know what else to say, other than the fact that it might be useful in reducing the tediousness in writing out "Violation of the username policy as a...". You can view the template's draft here. HeatIsCool (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

HeatIsCool, isn't this pretty much the same (though less informative) than {{uw-username}}? At least with uw-username it tells about how to fix the issue. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Never mind, I misread its usage; this is for posting at UAA. However, doesn't Twinkle automatically fill in most of this information when you use it to report someone? Primefac (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Weird names

Odd names, could be socks. No contribs but might bear watching:

Very odd, both created within minutes of each other. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

They have no edits, so nothing for us to do. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing by normal users

May normal (non-admin; no elevated rights) users edit this page to remove obvious (bot) errors? This might help clear the backlog and allow admins to focus on the actual violations of Wikipedia's username policy.Mgs2804 (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mgs2804: You can comment, but I don't recommend removing anything. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

False positives by a bot

Dear editors: I haven't worked in this area before, but I saw that there was a backlog so I thought that I would help out. I read the instruction page, but there is no mention there of how to deal with bot-reported items. If they are obvious false positives, should they just be removed right away? There is no "filing editor" to be notified. Or is there a reason for leaving them on the list with a comment for a period of time? Is this information written somewhere that I missed?—Anne Delong (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I think that false positives should be tagged with a "falser positive" template and left for a few days to prevent bot to re-add them. I don't know how the bot works exactly, so I'm not sure if this is the case, but that is how I do it. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Where is this "falser positive" or "false positive" (?) template, Vanjagenije? MusikAnimal's response helper has lots of suggestions, but not that one. (For my part I usually just remove them — I hadn't thought of the problem of the bot re-adding them, and haven't in fact noticed the bot doing so, but I could well have missed it.) Bishonen | talk 21:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC).
@Bishonen: It is {{UAA|fp}} (rendered as False positive: Username is not a blatant violation of the username policy.). You have in the page edit notice (Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention). Vanjagenije (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry, I guess I've got out of the habit of looking in the page edit notice, because it's so wonderfully easy to use MusikAnimal's script. Maybe MA could be persuaded to add a false postive template to it. Ping @MusikAnimal:! Bishonen | talk 22:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC).
Thanks, Vanjagenije and Bishonen. I didn't see the edit notice, since I hadn't got to the point of editing. I will add the template to false positives, and if I see an item so marked that's been in place for a while, I'll remove it from the list.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Added {{UAA|fp}} to responseHelper. Best — MusikAnimal talk 05:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
You're a star, MusikAnimal. Bishonen | talk 12:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC).

(not so) subtle vandalism by anon user (1 mo+)

Please see 86.44.11.11:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.44.11.11 --Avindratalk / contribs 00:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

DeltaQuadBot

At Bot-reported UAA, DQB is listing accounts that match a filter but who have not yet all edited. The UAA instructions say "Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA. Nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." If they haven't edited yet, should the bot be reporting such accounts pre-emptively? I asked Amanda about this and she said to discuss it. Fences&Windows 06:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: You are basically right, but I don't see this as a big problem. We wait for such users to edit, and if they do not edit, we just remove them. There is no damage. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Given the amount of backlog we sometimes get, and the lack of objection, i'll be setting it to edited accounts only. Accounts that haven't edited in 7 days will be removed and not watched though due to the amount of work it would put on the bot. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for the following strings to be added to the blacklist

Is it possible for these strings to be added to the blacklist?

Thanks in advance. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 15:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Linguist111: You should make a request at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. We do not make filters here. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: Thanks, Vanja! Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 22:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator_attention/Archive_6&oldid=1086387618"