Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention/Archive 2

message: Hello!  I'm unsure where to place this request.  I like my username, but I like another much more -- that's part of the problem (i.e., it belongs to someone else).  However, that user also appears to be inactive, having last edited in January, and has noted as much on their user pages.  So, my question is: is it possible to appropriate that user name as my own and edit under it hereafter?  If you cannot provide guidance, I would appreciate being pointed in the right direction.  Thanks.  Quizatz Haderach 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, GFDL requirements prevent us from giving you the name of an existing users if they have made any contributions. See WP:USURP for more information. The only way you can get that name would be if User:Quizimodo requested a rename, thus freeing up that name. Then you could request a rename to that name. (H) 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  So, I cannot request to 'usurp' that account, even if the editor appears to have departed (e.g., explicitly indicated on their talk page)?  Do you suppose I should even try to request it, and/or would there be any utility in me e-mailing the 'usurped' editor? Quizatz Haderach 00:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No chance at all, our licensing requirements require that we attribute all contributions to their source. If you took his name it would appear that his contributions were done by you. They will certainly refuse you at WP:USURP. Your only chance it to e-mail the guy and ask him to request a rename to free up the name. (H) 00:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I've since asked this same question at the 'usurp' talk page, and will e-mail that editor.  Keep your legs crossed. :)  Thanks! Quizatz Haderach 00:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New username 

message: We're getting a number of them this evening (UTC). It's suspected that they are probably the same user. At least one of them got blocked with ACB so if they are using the same IP that should stop it. Secretlondon 22:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, I thought you were just really frustrated by usernames when I saw the title for this section. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus Christ.. usernames 

message: The bot can now look up names that look like a domain name to see if there is an HTTP server running. If it cannot connect to a server its response code is 5**. The bot has an option to not report name on a pattern unless it can find the server.
What do people think, should the bot suppress reports on names that look like domain names but do not connect when the bot opens an HTTP connection? It will miss things like "free poker.com" if the real url is "freepoker.com", so that is the only reason that the bot should report names it could not connect to as a domain. On the other hand it will guarantee that any domain name reported will in fact have a server. What do people think? Report all domain like names, or only this who have an HTTP server running the domain that is literally described by the name? (H) 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you set it to report all names with ".com", but only other domain names if there's a website at the other end?  Mangojuicetalk 20:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: What does anyone think about a new bot to remove blocked usernames here. Instead of using the AIV helperbots then it could User:TSM UFA helperbot (or if you wanted it to be the same as H's you could replace the TSM with HBC), the source code could be exactly the same but if their was a new bot it would avoid new users getting confused about the name of the bot editing a different page rather than WP:AIV. The Sunshine Man 11:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting proposal, and I fully understand your point, but I really don't think it matters what the name of the bot is called, it does exactly the same job, and it seems much easier having one set (the AIV helperbots) so modifications only have to be made to that set rather than the UFA bots as well (i.e. When improvements are made, the source codes would have to be changed for both sets of bots as well). I personally think it's fine how it is. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with ryan.  The bots are there as a utility and it does not really matter what they are named.  Why recreate something that already exists and is already sutied to perform the task? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is needed. The name doesn't matter. Their just doing a job. I would guess most users reporting here are experienced enough to know that this isn't AIV. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 15:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything you may as well rename HBC's bot but I don't think it's necessary. GDonato (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Why does the link to UAA keep moving on the admin pages navi-bar? SGGH speak! 08:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People are tinkering with Template:Editabuselinks GDonato (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navi-bar 

message: Some of the username vios, notable User:The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, the name comes from the woodcut The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife. Whether these things are violations or not, sometimes it might be helpful if the bot leaves a note saying "Note: There is an article called The Dream of the Fisherman's Wife" just in case it explains a username or provides relevant information? Might also help with some of the obscure indian words that have things like "shit" in the middle of them, because it will show us that "choshit" or something is a word not a violation as such. Obviously we would have to program the bot not to do this for violations like "fuck" or something, because obviously those articles exist. SGGH speak! 15:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. It's not guarenteed, because in the case described above, the name was User:Thedreamofthefishermanswife wich is too complex for the bot to parse out and check for articles. But it could help for names of notable people. Leebo T/C 16:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That particular user was blocked because they created an article about a band by the same name, meaning that their username went from promoting a notable piece of artwork (acceptable, in most cases) to promoting a band (blatant violation). I'm not saying that your idea is not without merit, but this particular example is flawed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This idea would be useful for picking up bands or famous people, specifically all the NFL people because us UK users don't know all the Joe Nameths (sp?) and such out there. Though a like to a google search might suffice, who knows? SGGH speak! 20:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea 

message: I notice that a number of accounts with email addresses in them were just reported here, and then blocked.  Except that they were all from early 2006. I was under the impression that such usernames were grandfathered in under the current version of WP:U?--VectorPotentialTalk 13:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are, and i forgot to check accoutn creation - but blocking them does no harm as they all had no edits - a user was going through the users log and reporting everything he saw - pretty useless really. ViridaeTalk 13:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same applies to me; I didn't check the date of account creation. I will remember to do so with email names in future. James086Talk | Email 13:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the date policy added no e-mail addresses? (what's the latest date a username can be created and still be grandfatherered?) --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The date used to be in the policy, but it was taken out at some point for no clear reason. (H) 16:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we really need it.  As I understood it, they became forbidden when the software was changed to disallow the use of the @ symbol.  So, basically, email address names should never be blocked if they have @ symbols.  Mangojuicetalk 17:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retroactive?? 

message: When the bot finds a server when using a name as a URL, it will now report the title of the page as well as the connection status if it is available. See [ this example]. (H) 16:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, fantastic work! GDonato (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, H. Your bots, and coding skills, are amazing. What would we ever do without things like the AIV helperbots? --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Incidentally you may want to archive this talk page... *looks up... and up* SGGH speak! 19:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot now reports title of web site names 

message: In response to SGGH's little dig above (:-P!) I've archived the page - it was massive! I've also set MiszaBot to archive discussion older than 14 days. Hope that's OK for everyone. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dig, pffft :P SGGH speak! 09:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Hey, I had an idea for a new bot to monitor newusers and report them here, I know there is already one active but it hasn't edited lately, and it would be usefull.
I can think of the following criteria that a bot could easily identify, so if anyone would care to comment/suggest then please do.
# A regex list, as a badlist
# A list of badwords
# Names consisting of entirely one letter repeated more than 5 times
# Names that consist of a website url
# Names the same as an administrators or crats, however with one or two different characters.
# Names that contain sequences repeatted more than once
All sequences, wordlists, tld lists, etc will be on wiki, in a user subpage of the bot, and semi protected.
Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It exists, User:H/HBC MCP User:H/HBC MCP/NameWatcher User:H/HBC MCP/IRCFeed. Talk to User talk:Krellis about getting it running again. it is all open source and GFDL. 207.216.12.82 04:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean getting it running again? Has it stopped? SGGH speak! 20:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there were several bots running however I wa swanting to program a new one - the existing ones aren't working and I need some more bot-writing experience. And yes, the existing bots have stopped. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There was only one bot running to report bad names and it stopped on the 20th, so just talk to the owner of User:HBC NameWatcherBot or just use the source code that is posted for the bot to run a new copy. Until(1 == 2) 21:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot owner has left Wikipedia, so that discussion route is closed. —Kurykh 21:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we have the bot's source code (see above). Like someone said, we should talk to Krellis. He's good at these things, and probably knows how the bot works and everything. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I can assure you that the problems that made H leave are completely unrelated to the bot.  He revealed his real-life identity and was harassed by a particular user who got into a conflict with him.  The conflict was not over a username dispute.  Mangojuicetalk 19:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's good to know, I guess.  I'll take a look at the code when I get a chance and see where it leads me.  I may also e-mail H, as he may be willing to pass on the bot's credentials to me so the username doesn't need to change. —Krellis (Talk) 20:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay - I got in touch with H and got the HBC NameWatcherBot credentials, downloaded the bot, plugins, and such, beat on it a little to make it work on my system, and I think it's up and running successfully now.  I can't say for 100% certain that it's working until a matching username comes along and it reports it, but it seems to be reading the IRC feed properly, and I imagine it's only a matter of time until it either works or blows up horribly. —Krellis (Talk) 01:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaaaaaaaaaand it works! Good job. Grandmasterka 03:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I don't want to rewrite policy, but I was thinking that since UAA is for clear cut violations, we might want to have an unofficial char limit under which a username is not considered "extremely lengthy" (I mean for non gibberish stuff). I mean, there are 2 usernames on the list at the moment that are roughly 20 characters. "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" (yeah, I know, we always pick that example) is 30 chars. What do you think of stating that all usernames under 30 chars would be better suited for WP:RFCN than UAA? -- lucasbfr talk 18:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot currently uses 45 chars as a benchmark. —Kurykh 18:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be lower. Who's going to remember a 35 character username? Eddie 18:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not me. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It all depends on a username. I think than 45 is way too long, but blocking a 22 char long is going a bit far imo if the username means something. (Or we'll have to block CSCWEM ;) -- lucasbfr talk 20:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm comfortable with anything under 45 going to RFCN, anything above being here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happy with a 30-character guideline, but I feel that it should be left to admin discretion. "Can't sleep, clown will eat me"'s name is utterly memorable, whereas a random sequence of the same length is not. It follows, therefore, that as we are the English Wikipedia usernames shouls make sense in the English language.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Anthony. Eddie 20:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here.  At least CSCWEM is a manageable acronym.  The point of the rule is that we don't want anything that would hinder community discussion.  It would be difficult to even address someone if their name were User:I don't want to rewrite policy, but I was thinking that since UAA is for clear cut violations, we might want to have an unofficial char limit under which a username is not considered "extremely lengthy".  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extremely lengthy usernames 

message: Apparently, (according to WP:UTM)  is deprecated. This means there are no "official" (active) username-blocked templates (as in the uw- ones). The template may have to be redone to meet style guidelines – just a forewarning (I think it's a bit bureaucratic) GDonato (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say it was depreciated? —Kurykh 21:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Old" warnings (Template:TestTemplates) are deprecated by the new uw- ones. GDonato (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If it is, I hope that someone will produce an alternative. I work a lot in WP:UAA, and as that template creates almost a whole screen of text I do not want to have to type it manually!! --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternative this may meet the guidlines but I don't have the author's permission yet. GDonato (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the old template to  for now, wouldn't that suffice? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prepare to be reverted... erm.... someone's not going to like that. GDonato (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is wrong with it? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno... they have these....guidelines for such templates ;p GDonato (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's now standardised by name and it works perfectly fine - if they don't like it, sod 'em, they're not the ones that use it. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol. That would be my approach but you get the 10 WP:BOLD points! GDonato (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Or , which defaults to the same page. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, someone can repair the 1000s of double redirects we have from that (template exists at ) and someone can sneek it in the WP:UTM. GDonato (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone use AWB? I'll do the sneaking. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, Ryan. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Ryan Postlethwaite 22:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It can WJB, you just have to specify yourself e.g.  Ryan Postlethwaite 22:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah OK - thanks. Didn't know that... WjBscribe 22:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine how it is at present, we don't put uw messages in media wiki. The username block template is in media wiki space so we don't need to faff around with a rename. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, confirmed - what else needs done? GDonato (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm, are all the redirects sorted? If so, then fix WP:U and the UAA and RFCN header and that's all I can think of for now. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UAA done, no mention in the other places, it seems. No, the redirects are not sorted as there are loads and loads, will need to be automated. GDonato (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Username blocked 

message: DeadBot is running on a new temporary host, so the schedule is as follows (incase anyone wants to know why it's not up/when itll come back online):
All times are NZST (GMT+12)
Restarting daily at the following times:
* 0:00 AM
* 6:00 AM
* 12:00 PM
* 6:00 PM
It will be offline for two minutes prior to the restart. If the bot crashes for whatever reason, it should be back on at that time. If a powercut, server crash, etc cause it to stop, the restarting wont help, but it should be good on the next restart after the power is restored, the server is fixed, or whatever the problem is goes away. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeadBot Schedule 

message: seems to be a surname, so I'm not really quite sure why it was blocked. This probably isn't the place to bring this up, but I've noticed a large number of false positives winding up blocked, and it seems like this should be brought up somewhere. --VectorPotentialTalk 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note The profanity word, cock is in that name!--   PNiddy  Go!  0 02:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a name .  I'll unblock but 80% of accounts never make a contribution. --Steve  (Stephen)  talk  03:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: ZOMG!! . People should remember that the various bots and editors are going to generate a lot (perhaps a majority) of false positives. Some profanities just aren't profane. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Userlinks|Pincock}} 

message: Hey.  I just noticed that someone registered User:ThisNameMatchesTheLiteralWord"Shit".BeCafeful,IMayBeIndian and that this was blocked.  There have been a lot of other usernames along these kind of lines.  I have a feeling someone out there is registering usernames for fun to see if they can get blocked.  Per Wikipedia:Deny recognition, I think we should stop feeding these trolls by responding to these usernames with reports and blocks, and talk page messages.  Mangojuicetalk 02:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: in these cases, blocking account creation helps to cool down things :). -- lucasbfr talk 02:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine with me if they're not editing (the block is pointless then). Is that the case with trolling account creation?--Chaser - T 02:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardblock them, so that they cannot register more, and hopefully their main account gets blocked as well. It should also block them creating an account. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, a hard block is clearly better than a softblock.  But I would still prefer no block, and most importantly no message: why give them the satisfaction?  Mangojuicetalk 12:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes we block account creation but they change there IP, its clearly Molag Bal, editors who have been here for a few months will know. Rlest 12:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes I just remove it from the list without blocking at all, and it does nothing. WP:BEANS and WP:DENY apply here. If you see one and it doesn't edit just tell them to get a life on the talk page ;p GDonato (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I just made a comment on a name containing "Jesus" and then noticed that the bot had also made a report of a name including Jesus as a badword - isn't this accepted as a false positive in some cases, as Jesus is a common name, or do all "Jesus" names have to be blocked anyway? - Zeibura (Talk) 05:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The username policy indicates that Usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion in a distasteful, disrespectful, or provocative way, or promote one religion over another. (Note that simple expressions of faith are allowed unless they are disruptive, but are discouraged.) I didn't block the one you commented on, but I did block the jesusisaraptor, which had started vandalizing with the same text. The bot does give false-positives. That's why human beings do the blocks.--Chaser - T 05:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This keyword is needed as it is often used for vandals - at least as commonly, if not more, than the amount that it is used by good-faith users. Bots will always provide false positives - it's the way it works. This particular keyword provides many positives, and a few false positives, so at least for the moment, it will stay. One of the many reasons human discretion is needed. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also note, you refer to the "bot", whereas there are three seperate bots, User:HBC NameWatcherBot, User:DeadBot, and User:BetacommandBot. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was referring to BetacommandBot, which I've only seen around recently. It was because the report didn't say anything about the string being prone to false positives, which the others always do say, so I wasn't sure whether names with Jesus in them were not accepted at all or only in some cases. Thanks for clarifying, - Zeibura (Talk) 00:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That is because of Usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion in a distasteful, disrespectful, or provocative way, or promote one religion over another. (Note that simple expressions of faith are allowed unless they are disruptive, but are discouraged.) it is very rare that a username contains the name Jesus and isn't out to do one of those things. SGGH speak! 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider that many people of Hispanic background use "Jesus" as a given name and some legit surnames include it as a sub-string. In such cases a username would be legit. DES (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus 

message: Since when do DeadBot and Betacommandbot also report usernames and why do we need 3? Also, I don't think Betacommandbot is approved for this. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that each of the three bots do a different task (different words to look for). BetacommandBot was only approved two days ago and was blocked prior to that for running the task without approval. It has since been unblocked and is running. — E talkbots 00:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both betacommand and ABChelperwhatever seem to be reporting usernames now. Betacommands report summaries don't seem to be as helpful.... SGGH speak! 15:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bot was approved several days ago, and no, betacommandbot was not approved, however several days after he started he was blocked and went for approval, which has been approved. If you want to watch out for new bots, watchlist the page at WP:BRFA. Also, each of the 3 pick up on different things, various criteria, etc. They each have their own pros and cons. Also, mine is not active (I run deadbot) due to the fact I am waiting for a toolserver account. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, it is active now, I got a temporary host. The toolserver would still be better, but oh well. Eventually (next round of approvals is next week) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What service do the other bot(s) provide that the original bot could not do? Why not move the words to the the existing bots blacklist instead of running a whole new bot that seems to just do a limited subset of the existing bots actions? Until(1 == 2) 15:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bot handles detection of similairly-named sockpuppets etc, as well as longer names, and some other detection methods the others dont support. Also, multiple bots is very helpful when one or two of the existing bots are down (which can and does happen). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Has anyone else noticed that when WP:UAA is on a watchlist, only user-reports are listed and bot-reports are not? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 10:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot page is transcribed to this page. ViridaeTalk 11:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to also watchlist Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot :) -- lucasbfr talk 14:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthony, you may have ignore bot edits checked on your watchlist? --Steve  (Stephen)  talk  00:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The backlog tag appears on the bot page but not the main UAA page. SGGH speak! 21:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Must be that the bot page was backlogged but UAA was not. Until(1 == 2) 15:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's put in noinclude tags, so that the bot page is marked as backlogged, but the main page isnt. It's a feature. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is that? SGGH speak! 16:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So admin go directly into the bot page instead of the main page. --WinHunter (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Just a thought, should we prehaps ask reporting users to translate the leet speak violations in their report summaries for the aid of the users who can't read them? For instance, I can't read whatever the current leet violation is on the page, so it would certainly help me :D
I'm probably the only one who can't read leet *rolls eyes* SGGH speak! 00:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not feel bad, I am still trying to figure out what the current entry refers to. Dust Filter 00:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitcherfink... or something. SGGH speak! 00:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the redneck I banned it for. Secretlondon 00:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Local slang is particularly useless in this regard. Admins are from all over the world - we don't necessarily speak your local variant of teenager (and there is no guarantee suspect account does either) Secretlondon 00:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That also comes under the "elaborate on your reports" which i stamped highlighted and underlines over at the old WP:AIV and thought I did the same on the orange board here too. Don't get me started on how daft it can get :D SGGH speak! 00:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  leet speak 

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

message: Could this bot not pick up things like !!! common vandalism phrase, as a)we are not interested in vandalism here, and b)it's not against the username policy. That bot also thinks that all mentions of religion are against the policy, which they are not.. Secretlondon 19:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should probably leave this at User:Betacommand's talk page. I've been seeing a lot of problems with the names this bot reports though, and I honestly have heard nothing but complaints. I'm not sure where you go to revoke bots, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wound up there soon --L-- 20:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a complaint, take it to the Bots Approval Group, after, of course, discussing the matter with Betacommand. --Boricuaeddie 21:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am thinking about it, that bot needs a user editable blacklist because some of what it is reporting is not even close to violations. Until(1 == 2) 13:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, username policy has slacked recently.  There was a point where anything with a religious reference was either blocked or subject to a lengthy WP:RFCN.  I like the editable blak list idea so, as policy evolves anybody can update the bots flags. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have left BC a note. The real problem for me is things like "!!!" and "hahaha" being called bad words. I am not sure what BCBot does that the existing bots cannot do with more control. Until(1 == 2) 13:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive removed !!! & hahaha, and I do have a interactive list, its on IRC, users who wish to see the bot please PM me (my username is Betacommand there too). βcommand 14:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And what about those who don't use IRC? Until(1 == 2) 14:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave a note on my talkpage. βcommand 14:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BetaCommandBot 

message: I've reorganized this page, per discussion on WT:U, to reflect that it now serves two purposes:
* A noticeboard for usernames that may violate the username policy, particularly those discovered by bots.
* A list of usernames that need to be blocked by admins.
When the two purposes were conflated, admins were indefinitely blocking good-faith contributors for having bad usernames, against the intent of the username policy.
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  07:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Umm, how is "Questionable usernames" different than RFCN? Was the problem really the admins not knowing if it was questionable or not because those reporting did not mark it as such? How does this new section change anything? For the blatant section we review and decide to block, remove, or leave, same for the questionable section. If it is that questionable it should go to RFCN. The bot has always had its own section. This seems like a needless layer to me. Until(1 == 2) 13:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

text: ** I was updating the page to reflect how people use it. Since no bot report can possibly be "clearly blatant", doesn't that mean that we should move bot reports to RFCN? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  15:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: ***Bot reports are made due to blacklisted strings. Sensible admins remove them if they are false positives. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: ****That's a false dichotomy -- even most "true positives" are not blatantly inappropriate, they're just run-of-the-mill WP:U violations that need to be warned, not blocked. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  16:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: ******My point is that the bot reports - it doesn't block. Admins should use their brains and not block just because the bot has reported it. You need to change the mindset of trigger-happy administrators, not introduce more instructions into what is already apparently a confusing process for some. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *******And my point is that the bot is reporting to the wrong place. Bots posting here confuses the process more, because it puts questionable usernames on a page meant for names that need to be blocked. I can understand why several admins then get confused and block those names instead of warning them. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  16:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: ********Not to mention causing ordinary users to believe that those are appropriate names to report here. I would suggest adding to the wording that "names that need more discussion will be moved" a suggestion that users consider whether they ought to post there in the first place. SamBC(talk) 17:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it goes without saying that a bot report is based off of unambiguous criteria and will need human checking before an action is taken. Until(1 == 2) 20:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: I noticed that some of the bots reports are being removed because the user has not edited. The bot does have a flag WAIT_TILL_EDIT that can be placed next to keywords to make it wait until an edit before reporting. Until(1 == 2) 13:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An edit that may not ever come. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At which point it doesn't particularly matter if they're blocked, right? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  16:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah, if they never edit, then it doesn't matter at all. Leebo T/C 16:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. :) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's often better if a good faith user with an innappropriate username is blocked before they edit, so they can quickly create a new username before they even have any contributions. In my opinion it's best to block as soon as possible if a username is against policy - it sounds strange, but it will encourage new users to create an account with a more appropriate username. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that better? That sounds like the dystopian premise behind Minority Report to me. If they're not vandals, you've probably driven them away because they'd have to jump through bureaucratic hoops they don't understand to continue editing; and if they are vandals and they start vandalizing under a "more appropriate username", what have you gained besides harder-to-spot vandalism? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  16:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better because if the minute they start to edit they get blocked, they won't come back. I support discussing with users if the username may be inappropriate then taking it to RFCN for a second opinion, but if the username is against our policy, we don't need to wait till they've edited. If a good faith user creates a clearly inappropriate username, they get blocked and can create a new account straight away, before they've even got stuck into editing on their old account. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the policy doesn't say that every name that breaches the letter of it is verboten; it gives guidance as to what may be inappropriate, and advises common sense. It seems to be being taken very mechanistically by some admins, and appropriate loosely by others; it makes sense to try, one way or another (or several at once) to rectify this. One way is to make changes to appropriate pages that the admins will see; another is to notice the over-zealous admins and post to their talk page. The first is more polite and ought to be tried first, IMO. There are, of course, various other such ideas and methods, and all should be considered. SamBC(talk) 17:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Which is why the new standard we seem to be using - blocking violations definitely created in bad faith immediately but welcoming and maybe asking for username changes when it comes to those who may well be good faith users - is much better. Of course we don't need to wait a second when it comes to those three, but listing Hdhfdgdggd, to use one recent near victim, here, before even leaving them a message or letting them make an edit, is biting the newcomers. Common sense should not be applied selectively. Picaroon (t) 20:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Odd names are not automatically bad faith creations. As illustrated, a blanket rule cannot be applied to automatic blocks before editing, but is certainly warranted in some situations. I'd agree in the other, non-obvious situations, a quick note on the user's page requesting they create a new name would be much more helpful than a block without explanation why. However, the name still may need to be blocked, depending on the reasons. As always, the best of both worlds can be used for a happier outcome. :) Ariel♥Gold 20:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to see this "new standard" be reflected in policy before we adopt it at this noticeboard. Until(1 == 2) 20:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From Wikipedia:Username policy: "Unless a username is a blatant infringement of username policy, do not report it unless the user has begun editing." "In borderline cases, you will be asked to choose a new username; in egregious cases, your account will simply be indefinitely blocked." "The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page, explaining the problem and suggesting that they change their username." Looks like the standard I mistakenly called new is what we should've been doing all along. Picaroon (t) 20:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait till there is an edit 

message: I'm currently removing most bot reports. Almost all of them are invalid WP:UAA reports, according to WP:U (and not even some change to it by me and my newbie-hugging allies, but the way it's been for quite a while). In particular, basically every bot report is invalid for these reasons:
* The username was not created in bad faith.
* The user has never edited.
* No one has warned the user about their username.
If you read WP:U, you will notice that if any two of the conditions above holds, you are not supposed to block. Most bot reports fail all three. They would be reasonable reports on WP:RFCN, but they're way out of place here, and their presence encourages users and admins to misuse WP:U as badly as the bots do. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  19:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is not with bot reports in general, it's BetacommandBot's and DeadBot's reports that render the most false positives. HBCNameWatcher did a great job of just reporting blatantly bad faith usernames with a high percentage of accuracy. If anything we should be requiring the other bots to meet this level of accuracy. Leebo T/C 20:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Leebo.  I think HBC bot has amazing capabilities and even wanrs about commo nfalse positives.  My all time favorite feature is the domain checker that gives the http return code for possible spam sites. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is some times its better to catch possible usernames that could use intervention. If you have false positives in regard to certin phrases please bring them to my attention. Some of the bot reports need to be handled by humans because they do have false positives, or need human judgment. βcommand 20:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The HBC bot gives valid reports most of the time. BCB, I agree, can often misfire. GDonato (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Being reported by a bot does not mean a name is in violation, it means it is being placed in a spot where humans can look at it. That being said, some bots do better than others. There needs to be active consensus based editing of the blacklists and whitelists to bring it in line with changing policies. Until(1 == 2) 20:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I welcome users to contact me on Freenode, I have my controls set on IRC for several reason one including improper regexes crash the bot. Like Ive said my talkpage is open too. Human judgment is needed otherwise we would have admin bot doing this. βcommand 20:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like you did not so long ago? Da Masta 20:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im using the exact same code that i was using then it reports usernames to me. Instead of making personal attacks lets discuss the issues at hand. and I would warn you not to make personal attacks, especially without proof. βcommand 20:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Because very few bot reported names need any discussion at all. The suggestion that only blatant names go here is a suggestion for humans, a bot cannot tell what is blatant and what is not. When the bot got approval to post here there was both a consensus with the bot approval board and on this noticeboard's talk page that this is an appropriate place to make such reports. They go in their own section that warns of the nature of the reports. They don't belong at RFCN because that is a place where people request comments about names, not a place to report a name that no human has looked at. UAA is for simple decisions made with admin discretion, RFCN is decisions that need more input. Until(1 == 2) 19:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've tried to edit the header to make it a little clearer to new people who turn up at the page. What do people think? SamBC(talk) 19:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost all bot reports are invalid 

message: In regard to the above discussions, I propose that we concentrate on using HBC Namewatcher Bot as the username-reporting bot, and shut off the others. As many have noticed, the HBC bot has few false positives, while the two others are responsible for most of them. I can think of several advantages to this:
* The HBC bot is the only one with a whitelist facility, which permits certain phrases to be "whitelisted" so that those phrases are disregarded when checking for bad words. I believe this is a large contribution to the bot's low false-positive rate. The other bots do not have such a facility.
* The HBC bot gives more detailed reports, and has a facility for associating comments with particular bad words, informing admins of peculiarities to look out for, e.g. the possibility of Indian names containing "shit". The other bots just report "Reported because of bad phrase xxxxx".
* The blacklist and whitelist for the HBC bot are easily editable on-wiki by any admin, with several options for marking bad words as low confidence, withholding reports until a user edits and so on. In contrast, DeadBot has a simple "bad words list", and BetacommandBot has an IRC interface that is only accessible to one person.
* There is really no benefit to running three username reporting bots, when the HBC bot works as fine as it does. If there is some phrase that is reported by the other bots but not HBC, this can be fixed just as well by editing the blacklist. The only advantage I can think of is that the other bots would keep reporting if the HBC bot is down, but downtime has not been an issue so far, and this could also be achieved by having secondary copies of the HBC bot that are run by other people, and kick in if the main bot stops working.
Therefore, I suggest that BetacommandBot and DeadBot stop reporting usernames in light of the recent problems. Gandoman 08:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that I'm not much of a fan of betacommandbots work here, though I haven't seen much of this Deadbot. HBC Bots have always impressed me with their work. SGGH speak! 11:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: I have shut down deadbot and have left a message to BC about shutting down this part of his bot. I assume this is in line with consensus based on the above discussion. Until(1 == 2) 18:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have been a bit nicer to notify the bot operators of this discussion - I would have liked to have my say. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 20:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I reverted your blacklist blanking and re-blanked using the proper summary - please read the instructions on the bots user page before doing major things such as that. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I assumed you had this page on your watchlist, otherwise I would have ensured you knew about it. Until(1 == 2) 23:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shut off username bots, except HBC Namewatcher 

message: The username Psychobitch69 was just blocked after being reported 3 times - once by a bot, twice by humans. The last human one even described the problem as being 'bitch is a bad phrase', which sounds like it was learned from one of the bots.
I was posting policy-based justification for this not being blatantly inappropriate, but the user was blocked and the entry removed while I was editing. I reproduce it here:
**I fail to see how this is either confusing, misleading, disruptive, promotional or offensive; the policy doesn't say that profanity is against policy, it gives profanity as an example of something that may be disruptive, and being disruptive is against policy. "Usernames should not be considered inappropriate unless one of the general reasons applies" (emphasis in original) — the general reasons being the five I've quoted.
**"bad phrase" is the kind of explanation the bots give; it's used as a suggestion that the username might be a problem. Please review the notes in the header at the top of this page; they've changed recently to clarify this.
I'd also previously pointed out that they weren't calling anyone a bitch but themself. This is an example of the kind of issues that myself and others have been raising lately. SamBC(talk) 03:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the name is not a violation. Have you talked to the blocking admin? I don't see anything on his talk page. Regardless of the blocking admin I don't think it is appropriate for a name to be reported multiple times after it has been refused. It should go to RFCN if it is refused from here. Until(1 == 2) 04:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now... SamBC(talk) 04:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent. I am looking forward to the response. Until(1 == 2) 04:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm.  I not so sure as you guys that this is not a violation.  Many people would consider the term bitch an anti-woman slur, (and I gather New York City Council is voting on whether to ban the term, ], hopeless but anyway!).  Added to which we have clear sexual slang with 69. In combination, this seems disruptive to me.   Slp1 12:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I agree it is within an admin's discretion in blocking usernames. I just would not have blocked this one myself. Until(1 == 2) 13:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  It might also be worth clarifying that I don't think this one was "refused" by an admin per se.  It seems like SamBC disagreed with it and removed it, which is okay, but not quite the same thing.--Slp1 13:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

text: To clarify my position, I disagree with the block, but think it is within the admins discretion and thus a valid block. I think it was inappropriate for the same name to be reported here more than once instead of being taken to RFCN once rejected by a user in good standing acting in good faith. Until(1 == 2) 13:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, as noted above, that it is fair enough for anybody to remove a name.   The problem I see with saying that names cannot be reported more that once is that it requires people to search through the history to see if it has been removed previously.  Possible, but labourious especially if the user-name removed is not mentioned in the edit summary (though it was in this case). And then one would need to check the contribution history of the person who removed it to see if one thought it was an editor in good standing.  Is this really practical? Is it really going to happen? In any case, I am not sure that this is an issue that often Slp1 14:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I was not suggesting that a person take research before submitting a name. But if a name is submitted again it would be reasonable to take it off based on the fact that it has already been rejected. Also I don't think one should knowingly replace a name hoping to get a different response. I am not sure if that is what happened here though. Until(1 == 2) 19:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I blocked this user because of my interpretation of WP:U, that is, profanities and obscenities, sexual slang, and references to genitalia are not allowed. That being said, it follows that "bitch" and "69" both fall in this range. Knowing that the user made no edits, I did a softblock to allow them to create another account. In my opinion, such a block is not different than what my colleagues and I have been doing since the creation of this noticeboard, nor does it violate any policy. I do, however, think that RFCN is the place to post a name rather than doing so multiple times on the noticeboard. bibliomaniac15 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the same person should not submit the same name again and again, hoping for a different response and that RFCN would be the correct route.  That was not the case here, where a bot and two separate humans reported the name. I am not convinced that just because a name has been removed once that it is automatically  subject to being removed from the list.  In this case two people (forget the bot) thought the name was inappropriate and one thought it was okay. I don't think this is really consensus that the name is acceptable, do you?  My feeling is that if a name gets reposted again (by a different person) then it is appropriate to allow more eyes to consider it either by not automatically removing it just because of the previous removal, or by requiring that it be reposted to RFCN (for the same reason).  But like I said, I am not sure this happens that often anyway! --Slp1 12:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Can you quote me the part of the policy that says that? Because I see it use the word clear, as in referring to the certainty that it is a violation. The only time the word "blatant" is mentioned is when it says what to report here, not what to block. When it talks about what to block it says "Clearly inappropriate usernames should be reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, and can be blocked on sight by any administrator". It is not referring to the severity of the violation, but the certainty that it is a violation. Until(1 == 2) 17:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure who ɹəədsɹ 's "you" (who "violated WP:U")  refers to, but since I did not report this name either time nor block it (not that I could have!), it's sure not me! Until(1 == 2)'s question notwithstanding, I think it is clear from the discussion here that while some agree with Rspeer that this name was not blatantly or clearly inappropriate, there are others who disagree, and they are presumably entitled to their opinion too. --Slp1 19:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another example of over-eager/moralistic interpretation of policy 

message: If we have an editor in good standing with the username "Trollderella", why is any username including the word "Troll" considered an automatic breach of policy? SamBC(talk) 17:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It implies the user is a going to troll us, it's in policy that we block usernames that imply an intent to cause trouble, that's why it may get reported by the bots. We use judgement to decide if it does in fact imply intent to cause trouble or it is a good faith username. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

text: It's one of those pre-emptive blocks. If they let another Trollderella through, then they might end up faced with another user who is outspoken about the treatment of newbies. (apologies for the sarcasm) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  17:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Troll" is a string which needs better whitelist coverage. With appropriate whitelisting, a lot of the false positives can be removed. This doesn't really apply to "Trollderella", but it would for things like "stroll" and "patroller"Leebo T/C 17:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

text: And another point, referring to the specific example that caused me to start this section (the username "The Wayward Troll"); try doing a google search for the phrase "The Wayward Toll". You'll see that it's actually part of the title of a novelet. SamBC(talk) 17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is a good reason to make "troll" a wait-for-edit string, and to provide a note like "the string "troll" has many legitimate uses; please make sure the name refers to Internet disruption before blocking." Leebo T/C 17:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are username blocks leebo, not editing blocks - hence why it shouldn't matter if how they edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: My word, this has been discussed numerous time before - we block these usernames to save the hassle of going through users contribs that have usernames that are considered disruptive, it's nothing against the user per se, it's just that many users that come into contact with them will waste time and effort checking through there contribs to make sure they aren't attempting to troll. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ryan, I have to say I strongly disagree that any use of the word "troll" should be blocked. It really does depend on the context of it. Leebo T/C 18:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, there are times when the word troll would not be blocked, but based soley on the username - there are times when good faith users will be blocked as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something is wrong then, if a good faith use of the word troll (not referring to disruption) gets blocked with no discussion. Leebo T/C 18:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a user is trolling they get blocked for trolling - that is a behavioural block. A username block for implying an intent to troll, whether good faith or not, has nothing to do with an editing pattern. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Implying an intent to troll cannot be good faith, but a username can contain the string "troll" and not imply to troll. Leebo T/C 18:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I have added WAIT_TILL_EDIT and a note to the word "troll". Until(1 == 2) 18:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "The Wayward Troll", by Van Dahl - that's not really an acceptable username for obvious reasons, despite it's existence elsewhere. Likewise, we wouldn't permit something like Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel because it's too long and was also a election candidate's assumed name during a UK General Election. Nick 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Being more careful about blocking will necessarily let real vandals edit a bit longer, yes, but that is nowhere near the end of the world. False positives and overzealous blocks are far more harmful than a vandal getting to edit once. UAA's reason for being is to enforce the username policy, not to be the first line of defense against vandalism. RC patrollers do a perfectly good job at that, and they do it based on actual edits rather than speculation about what newbies might do. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  18:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Meanwhile, the example of Mr. Biscuitbarrel is someone who should just be warned -- they're not doing anything blatant or harmful. And what if the aforementioned silly politician decided to actually edit Wikipedia, using his best-known name? Even in less-silly cases, there have been numerous instances of famous people getting insta-blocked, without a warning, for impersonating themselves. What a way for Wikipedia to make a good impression. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  18:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hope nobody would consider blocking something like Mr. Biscuitbarrel straight away, that's the sort of account that should be gently guided into changing their username through encouragement, not through a block or even templating them. Make it personal and pleasant. Users choosing an interesting or clever username should be afforded a little extra leeway, common or garden vandals don't normally have the patience or intelligence to come up with something smart and interesting, but if it's clear cut, there's no option to block, really. I'm certainly happier to see a couple of vandals get away with a couple of extra edits than a couple of good users blocked and turned away from editing Wikipedia at an early stage, all within reason though. Nick 19:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Just in terms of verbal reasoning, how does "not really acceptable" mean the same thing as "blatantly imappropriate"? Immediate blocking is only for "blatantly inappropriate" usernames. SamBC(talk) 19:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider them the same thing, but the later said in a much more pleasent and restrained manner, much less likely to cause upset compared with the former. Nick 19:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

message: That is a classic SGGH speak! 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, awesome! :) Jmlk17 09:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Dontblockmeihavechildren]] 

message: When you see a false positive bot report that can be avoided by white-listing a word, please make a note here or on the bots whitelist talk page about it. There will be less false positives in the future. I just added schinke, which I am told means ham in German, and another name with "shit" in it "misashito". Names in particular should be whitelisted.
The whitelist is the main defense against false positives and is not really being used very much. We can save a lot of time, and the improvements will be cumulative and lasting. Until(1 == 2) 06:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing false positives 

message: User:Balls4balls is being repeatedly re-added by User:JetLover. Following previous discussion here, it seems appropriate to re-remove it. User has been told on their talk page, my talk page, and the edit summary, to take it to WP:RFCN. Can people clarify, based on their experience etc, what an appropriate step now is? SamBC(talk) 22:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it, I agree WP:RFCN is the best measure. GDonato (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Is it just me, or are the HBC bots not on/working right now? Jmlk17 09:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it's not just you unfortunately, they have been down for the past 3 hours or so... --Hdt83  Chat 09:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn...no bueno. Jmlk17 09:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IT's definitely not doing its job. Where are you bot?Rlevse 13:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be back online. Jmlk17 01:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the bots are down. Secretlondon 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the one that cleans the lists up is definitely working, it just removed something. SamBC(talk) 18:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's the name reporting one I'm worried about - nothing since this morning and we've had some clear cut ones since then - like one with Nazi in. Secretlondon 18:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per my reply on my talk, the bot's connection to IRC was interrupted in such a way that the bot shut down, but it has now been restarted, and looks like it just made its first report, so all is well again.  Thanks for also letting me know on my talk, that and/or e-mail are the best ways to make sure I find out about problems like this most efficiently. —Krellis (Talk) 18:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I still don't understand what changed. We had HBC bot for ages and it worke beautifully, and suddenly it went and we had three bots working. I'm all confused. Why is High in BC's bot not still working? SGGH speak! 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original bot was stopped, and a new clone of it started. At around the same time as the clone started, User:DeadBot and User:BetacommandBot both started work on UAA. Now, it's only the clone namewatcher bot, as it was the best version. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better.  Either way, we have a bot again! :) Jmlk17 09:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if the older admins are laughing at us going 'We used to remove these by hand before, y'know!' while strummin' their ukeleles... ~ Riana ⁂ 09:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet they are.  We're spoiled now :). Jmlk17 09:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bots? 

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

message: Hello, I was just wondering what the reason for blocking people with "sexy" in their name is.  If you look at the definition on wiktionary, which I believe to be correct, you can see that "sexy" does not necessarily have anything to do with sexuality.  The policy is "Usernames that include profanity, or obscenities, or references to genitalia or sexual slang."  Obviously none of the first 3 apply, one could wonder about "sexual slang" however on wiktionary, it does not say the word is slang, and I think even in the case of "The participants in the swimsuit competition are all very sexy", the relation to sexual intercourse is very limited almost inexistent.  In the case of User:Sexyberger, I think he probably meant to spell sexyburger, as it berger doesn't mean anything in English, and if he meant burger then it corresponds to the second definition: (of a thing or concept) Very attractive or appealing.  Often people with names like "joe is sexy" are blocked, but even though self glorification is a bit silly, having a userpage like this is hardly any better.  I think it is more of a light hearted joke.  Jackaranga 15:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jackaranga on this, although I can't think of any more supporting argumments right now. SamBC(talk) 15:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it really depends on what follows the "sexy" part of the name... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ones that get to RFCN tend to be allowed: Sexc tomboi chik (Allow), Sexibiotch123 (Disallow because of the Biotch part), and Sexalicious Pimed Studmuffins (Allow). I agree, sexy is innocuous by itself and does not seem to violate WP:U. Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't have a problem with sexy, though that's not to say it could never be inappropriate, I don't think it is inappropriate or against policy per se. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here was my rationale, which I guess everyone won't agree with or see..the "berger" part was a play on "burger" ("play ons" have often been blocked), making it "sexy burger" which can refer to female private areas.Rlevse 16:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm sure you have a basis for that, I can't find any reference for that meaning. If you have a reference, I think that would probably convince everyone enough. SamBC(talk) 16:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only what I've heard in real life. Slang does vary from place to place. If someone wants to unblock it, I won't object.Rlevse 19:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have read that as sexy bugger - still very mild. Be/urger doesn't mean anything other than food here, afaik. Secretlondon 19:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I also think that "sexy" is not an automatic violation. This is an area where admin discretion comes into play. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What, in particular, would it be a violation of? If you're going to say it falls under the "offensive" clause, it is not your job to protect users who are so sheltered that the word "sexy" offends them. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  06:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It comest down to context doesn't it? "Sexyladyonwiki" just slips into the okay zone, but "sexybigblackguy4u" would probably get blocked. A finite line. SGGH speak! 15:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  blocking people with "sexy" in their name 

message: UAA has reports coming out the wazoo (whatever that means) is anyone else going to help me out here? :D SGGH speak! 21:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ariel can't do much, but she can hand SGGH a cup of coffee to keep him going!  Ariel♥Gold 21:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Backlogged cleared, bleh.... SGGH speak! 21:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: R would help SGGH, but he can't, for technical reasons. :] --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 11:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yikes! 

message: So it's emerging consensus that 'pee' and 'poo' usernames (using common sense) are fair game for UAA and will not result in templates for misuse. At the start of this discussion, Alasdair was among the first victims of inconsistent admin actions, and was clearly intimidated. It would've been easier for me to back off instead of trying to get consensus. At times I felt intimidated and considered quitting UAA, but I chose to press on, relying on my good faith. My advice is, in future disputes, discuss it on the relevant talk page before unilateral action, and take the intimidation factor into account. Direct or indirect accusations towards editors caught in a rule-interpretation crossfire do not address the underlying problem and scare off good contributors. ~Eliz81(C) 19:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically - we go partly on contributions too. People with crude/childlike/offensive usernames generally don't make useful contributions. If they have a possibly borderline username but only have vandalism contributions they'll be blocked. It's always about the encyclopedia and never about the rules. We have Ignore all rules for a reason! If people are trying to intimidate people by using templates then that needs to be dealt with. Repeat templating is intimidation, and it is always better to write in your own words anyway. Secretlondon 19:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarizing thoughts for policy 5 discussion 

message: Just so everyone knows, we're now discussing potential policy changes here, please everyone feel free to weigh in there. ~Eliz81(C) 21:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[WT:U]] 

message: Could I also put forward a suggestion that people place reports that are to be discussed rather than dealt with outright over to RFCN at the first (or second) sign of discussion? Yesterday (and at other times to) we have ended up with 6 or 7 lines of discussion on the UAA page which can just clog it up. I suggest that if there is going to be discussion, get it off UAA quickly and over to RFCN, you can copy over the comments that already exist if it helps the RFCN report. Is that a fair suggestion? :) SGGH speak! 10:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I'd say that UAA is to RFCN as PROD is to AFD. UAA isn't the main process, it's just a convenient tool to get things done faster and avoid backlogs. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  22:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sometimes a little discussion - eg asking the proposer what the obscenity is in case of regional slang is worthwhile and doesn't need moving. Ones that need proper discussion should be moved obviously. Secretlondon 16:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read the discussion, one thing that concerns me is what appears to be sometimes people are told to take a name the report here to RFCN, and then in RFCN they are told it's too obvious, it should be brought back here.  Doesn't it make more sense for the process to match AfD and Speedy Deletes?  In AfD, if it becomes clear that it matches a Speedy criterion, they close it as a delete, and delete it.  Why can't the same apply with usernames?  Rather then RFCN saying "take it to UAA", why not simply have that process delete it, but let the reporting user know, politely, that UAA was the better place so that the reporting user (who I'm sure did so in Good Faith) can learn of the appropriate place to take "obvious" problem usernames? — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sensible suggestion. I think with the discussion here, more admins were made aware of the UAA/RFCN discrepancy, which is the first step. But it's true, when AfDs get speedied no one really criticizes the nominator. Better to be safe with AfDs, and RFCNs. (I think this was part of Rspeer's point.) Speaking of which, why don't we have a process for usernames similar to article deletion, where we'd tag the userpages or something and they'd go into a category like :Category:Usernames in violation? Just a thought. ~Eliz81(C) 03:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That category does indeed exist. If anyone places the  template on a user's page, the username is added to the :Category:Usernames editors have expressed concern over, and HBC AIV helperbot4 adds that to the UAA report. (Example: here) Ariel♥Gold 09:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that it only added it to an existing report at UAA, not added the name itself to UAA. I was thinking of the tagging system working like CSD, where there isn't a need to consolidate reports on a particular page other than the category label's. ~Eliz81(C) 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFCN 

message: Hi, just wanted to let you know that Thai names commonly end in "porn". I see that users  and  were recently reported by the bot and blocked for username violations. Searching Google reveals that Chuleeporn is a Thai name, while Klingsporn seems to be a German name. These users should be unblocked. Also, maybe a warning should be added when the bot reports names with "porn", warning people to check if the username is a legitimate name before blocking. Is he back? 10:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true. A Miss Universe was Thai and her first name is Porntip.Rlevse 16:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a note for the Bot to leave when reporting names for containing the word "porn" - . WjBscribe 17:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have unblocked both names.Rlevse 19:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names ending in "porn" 

message: Re the above thread, seems the blocking admin did NOT put the username block notice on the userpages. This is not done all too often. Please post a notice to all blocked usernames.Rlevse 16:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They get it when they try and edit - I don't leave a message if it seems to be a repeat offender as it feels like we are rewarding them somehow. Secretlondon 17:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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

text: on it's own gives no specific reason why the username is inappropriate, so putting it as the block reason is not enough. We must put the temlate on the user talk page as well, quoting a specific reason in the parser that it is against policy. E.g. . Ryan Postlethwaite 18:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use the format  in the block summary. It should have the same effect as leaving it on a talkpage without adding unnecessary cleanup work. WjBscribe 18:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: They get the exact message you use in your block summary - so if your block reason is , they get the full message when they try to edit. It does exactly the same thing as a talkpage message - and even has additional information about challenging blocks, the unblock mailing list etc. WjBscribe 20:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never knew that. Is this posted somewhere on wikipedia? Rlevse 21:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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

text: When you make a block there is an additional field for an additional block reason which can be used to add a bit more explanation. The user will see the usernameblock message, the additional message below it, and the additional instructions that every blocked user gets. There are two advantages of leaving a talk page message. 1) it is easy for other RC patrollers to see that the user is blocked. 2) The user gets a orange 'new message' bar (even before they try editing) which includes a direct link to their talk page where they can discuss the block. I have noticed that it can be very helpful for good faith newbies to visit the talk page and clarify the block or the username policy. Of course, sometimes with bad faith users you don't want a discussion, so there's not much point leaving the message. I would say that the default should be to leave a talk page message because it's helpful, but there are times when it isn't necessary. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I confess I don't leave blocking messages on usernames like "shittwatfuck" etc. because they know why. I do try to leave them on other such violations but I have forgotten/not done it on occasion, I have a feeling im the "blocking admin" this thread refers too.... eeep! SGGH speak! 22:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post block notices 

message: Assuming my bold change to the header sticks (requesting that reports include an indication as to which of the "big 5" reasons—confusing, misleading, disruptive, promotional and offensive—is believed to apply to the name), it would seem necessary (in order to keep things smooth) that Twinkle be updated to include this. I have no idea how this would be done or who to contact - does anyone else? SamBC(talk) 01:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contact WT:TW or User:AzaToth, this seems like a reasonably good idea. GDonato (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Twinkle doesn't look like it will fix this anytime soon. I think that in the meantime, we need to point out that such reports are invalid (or just remove them), lest others try to follow their bad example. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  04:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting Twinkle updated 

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

message: I'm trying to add a reminder about no-edit reports to the UAA instructions, but it keeps getting removed, and frankly I don't understand why. My addition:
"Before reporting, please make sure the user has begun editing, with the exception of blatantly obscene or inflammatory usernames. Unused usernames do not harm the encyclopedia."
WP:U clearly states that unused usernames do not need to be reported, and the current instructions fail to mention this, so what exactly is the problem? --Bongwarrior 06:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, have you contacted the user who is removing it? Or is it more than one? SGGH speak! 13:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:U states that there's no need to report (anywhere) names that haven't edited, unless they are blatant violations - that means any of the 5 reasons, not just obscene or inflammatory. Blatantly promotional names are just as valid. Further, no name should be reported to UAA unless it's a blatant violation and needs blocking, and as long as that's the case the fact of an editor having edited or not is irrelevant, by policy. To quote, "Unless a username is a blatant infringement of username policy, do not report it unless the user has begun editing." Thus, specifying only two types of infringement is a misrepresentation of policy, and saying don't report names without edits unless they're blatant is completely unnecessary, because nothing should be reported here unless it's a blatant violation. I think I just explained it twice in slightly different terms... is it any clearer? SamBC(talk) 18:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. You seem to be saying, "Policy says not to report no-edit usernames unless it's a blatant infraction. But since we are only supposed to report blatant username infractions anyway, don't bother waiting for edits." As I said in my edit summary, blatantly obscene or inflammatory names are generally the only ones that would possibly require a preemptive block. Promotional names absolutely do not need to be reported prior to editing, because it's usually impossible to tell if a username is promotional or not until it edits. --Bongwarrior 19:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, blatant means clarity, not severity. No need to wait for an edit to report here if it is a clear violation. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, yes, any clear violation of the username policy allows for a block before editing. Promotion, confusing, the whole gamut. It is only when it is not clear that you need to seek greater discussion first. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but it seems most users have wildly varying opinions on what constitutes a "clear" violation. It's not the end of the world if we wait for User:Bobo6574839292902984387475485 to start editing, but I wouldn't want to wait with a username like User:Kill all the jews or something similar. --Bongwarrior 19:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your arguments, Bongwarrior, and agree with them to some extent. However, they are not in line with policy, and this page exists purely to serve the policy. If you want to change the way it works in ways that go beyond current policy, then try to get the policy changed. SamBC(talk) 20:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My main point is that a reminder to wait until the username in question starts editing is sorely needed in the UAA instructions. Does anyone disagree? If the part about possible exceptions needs to be removed, I have no problem with that. --Bongwarrior 20:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, waiting for edits is explicitly not required for blatant violations. UAA is only for reporting blatant violations. Thus, no name brought to UAA correctly should require waiting for an edit. The warning in question should be at WP:RFCN, and I think that it is. If there's a problem that non-blatant names are reported here without an edit, then the "without an edit" part isn't the problem. The problem is the "non-blatant" part. SamBC(talk) 20:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're forgetting what RFCN is for. The warning should be a  warning on the user's talk page, and you only take it to RFCN if the user disagrees. But your idea of UAA is too idealized, because you assume that every username can be neatly classified as "blatant" or "not blatant". There will always be edge cases where it makes sense to wait for the user to edit, and swing the decision based on the user's edits. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  21:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, if there's any doubt at all, then it's non-blatant, by definition. It might be nearly blatant, but everyone's life would be much easier, including the new users who get blocked, if people only reported things to UAA that were really blatant. Oh, and I didn't mean to minimise the important of discussion before going to RFCN - but people shouldn't be reporting here because they can't be bothered to discuss with the user. If it's only suitable for RFCN (and then only after discussion), then if you can't be bothered to discuss, just leave it. Rspeer, if you've been paying attention, you know I'm one of the people who pushes for discussion with the user before handling at RFCN. But it was appropriate to clarify for others benefit. SamBC(talk) 21:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Is shut up a violation of the username policy? I'm not too sure if this is the right place to ask though. --Hirohisat 紅葉 05:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it meets the criteria: "Offensive usernames are likely to make harmonious editing difficult or impossible." ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree SGGH speak! 15:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A non-blatant violation, yes. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  17:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the above notwithstanding, it would depend on if that was the user name, or if the words were incorporated. For instance, would "I should shut up" be a violation? Granted, it would seem a silly username, but I'm not really sure it would be blocked due to username violation. Or, "My dog needs to shut up"? If there is a specific name you're referring to, it would give a better idea of context, but I imagine just the name "Shut up" would, by itself, be a borderline name, mainly because, as Until mentioned, it could make harmony difficult. Ariel♥Gold 18:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed that we were talking about someone called simply User:Shut up. That name would create disharmony every time the user reverted something, for example. That makes the name a violation, so I'd leave a  and take it to RFCN if the user kept editing with it, but I would not block it as a "blatant violation". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  18:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

message: This bot automatically removes a name from this list if it's been blocked.  It should probably only do so if the user has been indef blocked.  Otherwise it will automatically remove a user blocked for abuse who also has a questionable user name.  Rklawton 18:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is beyond the bot's current ability, it is designed for AIV and serves this page as an afterthought. 1 != 2 18:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone temp-blocked a user name that means an admin saw the username and decided that it wasn't appropriate to block it indef. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the most current example, it does not.  Rklawton 19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any example linked so I'm not sure what case your referring too.  In any case, whoever it was made a call not to block indef.  We don't employ robots here, as far as I know. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 03:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I made a similar request a few months ago at User:HBC AIV helperbot/Feature requests. Nothing ever came of it as far as I know. --Bongwarrior 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HBC AIV helperbot3 

message: Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names#Change name or else.... Cheers, Melsaran (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Forced rename" for non-blatant usernames with edits 

message: I noticed UNEG claims in an edit summary it edits on behalf of the United Nations Evaluation Group. Should it be reported as an immediate block Role account then? (I have to run now, so I can't do anyting timeconsuming ;-) or anything at all, sorry) Greswik 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'd recommend is, of course, slightly more time-consuming than an immediate block. I suggest talking to them, finding out what they hope to accomplish on Wikipedia, and helping them do this in a way that can be attributed to a single user. Since I rather doubt that the UN is vandalizing or spamming, an immediate block would be very silly. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  15:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This shows the intent, also matches a known organization. Rlevse 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe them, they were fixing an inaccuracy. That's hardly threatening. Again, just talk to them about role accounts, no block is necessary. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  19:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role account 

message: Seriously. There's so much extra crap stuck at the top of the UAA page that I have to hit page down just to see anything. I'm trying to shrink down Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/header, but still, it seems like we're getting excessively crap-happy when it comes to sticking stuff there. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's mainly because people are excessively crap-happy when reporting usernames here :/ Seriously, despite all our attempts at reform, I block maybe 1 out of 8 reports that come up. When will the madness end? Is there some quota people are trying to reach - reporting 10 users to UAA a day - because some of the stuff that appears here doesn't cause even the slightest twitch of the eyebrow. Admittedly I've been using the Internet for some years now... ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 06:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: But returning to the original question Riana takes a deep breath could we perhaps hide it by default, or something? What can be pruned from the header? ~ Riana ⁂ 06:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiding may not be a good idea, because some users need that information, and I think our bogus reports would go up threefold without that information being immediately apparent... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a tinker with the header, and managed to reduce it in length by a further three lines () without losing any information. That should help a little. The only other option without removing instructions is to reduce the text size, which isn't ideal. Neil ☎ 12:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made further alterations to the page. Now the sysop instructions are hidden; I figured that most admins are aware of what to do, and if they aren't, then it is easy enough to open it. I have also made the text smaller, but it is still easily readable. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good calls all around, folks (I especially like hiding the admin stuff; very sound logic on that). The page looks leaps better than it did when I first posted my pithy little complaint. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much more crap can we have on the page? 

message: It would be really great if people would say why a username breaks policy rather than just giving an automated generic reason. This would enable us to see what the actual problem is. I understand that this might involve people not using automated scripts, but I'm sick of having to work out what's wrong with something.. Secretlondon 15:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, when the generic reason does not explain well enough and it is not apparent what the violation is, I usually just remove the name with a comment asking for more detail if they try again. 1 != 2 15:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Are people still doing this? There should be a pointer in the orange header that I originally added saying something like "blatant violation is not a good enough report summary!" Do I have to stick flashing lights on it? Grrr SGGH speak! 14:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoever edited the header above removed it. I have readded it now, hopefully this will jog peoples memory :) SGGH speak! 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made one more edit. Although I put the text "obviously needs to be immediately blocked" there in the first place, I've now removed the word "obviously". Even though this weakens the instruction, I think that too many instances of "obvious" in the instructions may have led people to believe that saying "obvious violation", or leaving a generic TWINKLE message without a reason to block, was sufficient. Never mind that they'd only think this if they failed to read the rest of the page; we already know that many username reporters don't read directions very well. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  21:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Give an actual reason 

message: I made this edit to the page: .  This removes two empty lines at the top of the page. Will this break the bots that keep track of backlog here? I immediately reverted myself so we could talk about it before making the change. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the   is all on the same line, it should work fine, even if there is other stuff on the line with it.  It will be a little harder for humans to find stuff, but the bot will be fine.  At least, the code says so, whether or not it will do something that I don't expect it to, I can't say :) —Krellis (Talk) 15:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I have to correct myself, I just found a place where this does, in fact, break - the bot relies on  being at the start of the line.  I can probably make some changes to fix that, but until that's done, the code does need to stay on its own line (stuff after the end of the settings comment is fine, though). —Krellis (Talk) 15:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 15:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  formatting fixes... 

message: What is normally done for if a username ending in "Bot" is created, submitted for bot approval, and then either withdrawn (this is the case for a user currently on this page) or fails? It does not appear the user intends to attempt any automated editing without approval. —Random832 16:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would imagine nothing happens, it isn't doing anything wrong just sitting there, aside from taking up a couple of kilobytes... --SGGH speak! 18:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, so long as the user doesn't try to use the account there isn't anything that needs to be done. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "*Bot" usernames 

message: I have created a new template  that automatically fills in the block reason and checkboxes:
*
I would like to suggest it be used here instead of userlinks. Note that it still takes you to the blockip screen; you can click either and change the parameters if you want to make a block other than a username block. —Random832 20:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just going to go ahead and do it. —Random832 03:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a problem diff with the way HBC HelperBot is dealing with the new template. It treats user-uaa lines below an item it deletes as comments and deletes them as well. MKoltnow 17:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

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

message: There have been many reports recently of the form "there isn't actually anything wrong with this username, but they're editing with a conflict of interest and I want them blocked". Wikipedia has a place for this: it's WP:COIN, the Conflict Of Interest Noticeboard. We shouldn't usurp their job, especially since they have subtler ways to deal with things besides "block" or "don't block". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  01:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree, maybe a quick mention in the UAA header is in order?  I'm tired of UAA being used as an easy way to get people blocked, and this is one way people have used it.Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The COI noticeboard deals with people that are thought to have a COI with an article - editing misconduct. With regards to a username iteslf, if it's promotional, it can be blocked solely as a username violation - it's nothing to do with editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Promotion and COI aren't the same thing. Look at the report on "Dthomw" on the page right now. If editing under your name or an abbreviation is "promotional", I'm doomed and so are you. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  01:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yeah, understood. The problem with those names however is that we can't be sure it is, or isn't, the person - and we don't want a random person appearing to edit as the notable person. I agree however that in these circumstances, we should make every effort to ascertain exactly who the person is. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So as someone fairly new to UAA what would be the proper course of action (report, uw-username, COIN) for a user XYZCorp who creates an article on XYZ Corp that is blatant advertising? Or what about user XYZCorp creating an article about John Doe who seems unrelated to XYZ Corp? (My current understanding of policy would be report first, warn second) -- pb30<talk> 02:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If User:XYZCorp creates XYZCorp then report it, it's (most probably) acting in a pormotional manner. If User:XYZCorp creates a completely unrelated article, have a chat to them first - talk to them about WP:CHU and if you can;t come up with an amicable comprimise, take it to WP:RFCN. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Is there some way to get people to stop combing through the usercreation log or special:listusers to look for minor infractions of WP:U that haven't even edited in months/years?--172.167.228.130 (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure - ignore it.  If it's an account that hasn't edited in two years and it's not incredibly inflammatory, I remove it without action.  Much of the time, there's not even a talk page.  I'm not going to create one, just to block the name that has never contributed.  If enough reports get removed without action, folks will stop combing that.  Obviously, it takes leaving a note for the reporting party, which (to be frank) I'm not always good at remembering to do, but... - Philippe | Talk 16:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't defunct usernames that are potentially offensive or exhibit minor infractions be MORE subject to blocking than say a user with minor transgression making great editorial contributions? Wisdom89 (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  inactive accounts? 

message: The copy paste template is gone! Save me!!!!!! --Pupster21 Talk To Me 12:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the copy paste template? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  23:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he means the hidden template that users can copy and paste so they know how to report. Ryan Postlethwaite ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (if I understood this right) You already armed yourself with vandalproof - I would suggest employing Twinkle (if you haven't already done so) if your feeling eager. Just be careful not to act too impulsively. Wisdom89 (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh No! 

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

message: What happened to the more specific and detailed TW UAA criteria? Not sure if this is the correct place to ask - but I feel it would give administrators (and reporters) the ease to identify problematic usernames, ones that require immediate attention. They're way too generic now. Thoughts? Wisdom89 (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those criteria were removed because they are not derived from the policy. They were, but they led led to misunderstandings. Even when they were in the policy, they were examples, not criteria. However, people mistook them for criteria, so they were removed. They were then removed from Twinkle as well. SamBC(talk) 11:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ok, thank you for the clarification. There must have been a discussion regarding the changes, I suppose I just missed it. IMHO those breakdowns served as a benefit rather than a hindrance. Now there seems like a far greater chance of ill-conceived or misguided reports. Anyway, thanks for the reply. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WT:U would be the correct place to ask, and there you'll find a whole lot of discussion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twinkle specifications 

message: I'm glad that people are being more cautious about username blocks now. I've seen a lot fewer false positives being blocked recently.
In an example of things possibly swinging too far the other way, I noticed that the user "(Wikipedian's handle) took a shit in his pants" was softblocked. Somehow I doubt we want to welcome that guy back. That name is a blatant attack on a user. The user should have been hardblocked, so he doesn't come back to be disruptive under another name. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I was the one who reported said user, I have to agree. Let's not swing too far the other way, leniency-wise. Although, I agree wholeheartedly, and thanks to discussion with Rspeer above at WP:U, myself and others are being extremely (although not overly) prudent regarding the names that are reported. It's a good thing there's a fleshing out going down. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is what hardblocks are for 

message: What is wrong with having "hate" in you username, as long as it isnt a personal attack? T.Neo (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily anything; the inclusion of "hate" patterns in the bot's blacklist has been subject to a certain amount of chop and change for some time. Bot reports do not represent things that really need blocking, they represent things that someone who knows about stuff should take a look at. SamBC(talk) 10:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hate" 

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

message: Can I suggest that the headers for Bot and User reported are taken down a level, to keep in line with WP:AIV? That way, if both AIV and UAA are transcluded on the same page, they match more closely. Also, in my opinion, it gives the admin sections more continuity if they have the same heading levels. What's opinion on this like? Stwalkerster [ talk ] 11:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me, I can't see the harm, and it does look better at AIV. (1 == 2)Until 14:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go ahead and change it then. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout suggestion 

message: Could somebody create some templates specifically stating that a users username is too confusing to use and giving instructions about how to change it? It should also state that they will be blocked should they continue normal editing (obviously in a very nice way!). I would, but I'm a little tired. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm going to disagree with you there -- we shouldn't mention a block in our first communication with the user. I could make such a template, without the blocking threat, later. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  19:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm, well that was one of the only reasons I agreed to the change in policy :-S I don't want this to turn into a case where all users who have confusing usernames have to go through RFCN, this is one of the major problems with allowing usernames that go against policy remaining unblocked until discussion with them has taken place. When I said we should discuss it with the user, we should explain the policy to them and ask them to change it without the need for a block. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ryan, there's a difference between a policy involving them possibly being blocked, and an intent to mention it immediately in the first communication.  Take a look at  and ; neither mentions blocking, although we certainly do block people for vandalism.  Mangojuicetalk 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mangojuice has it right on. It's not my intent to force everything to go through RFCN, just to stop biting newbies, using the same techniques other processes use to avoid biting newbies. A discussion can be a lot more civil when it doesn't have the words "OR WE WILL BLOCK YOU" in it; save the threats for when you need to threaten. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: I've created a special template to use for promotional username blocks.   is not really a good message because it implies that only their username is a problem when this is not the case -- in a great many such cases, I have had to decline unblock requests from such users who thought that we were merely objecting to their username, not their actions.  So I'd like people to try using my new template instead: it's  (or, perhaps easier to remember: ).  (And of course, feel free to edit the templates to improve them.)  Mangojuicetalk 19:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! I was going to propose separate templates for the various username block reasons, since I was ending up using the "reason" field in  every time, which created the problem you mention, where the template language makes it sound like coming back with a new name would make everything OK. I guess it might need a few language tweaks but I can't think of any at the moment. --MCB (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that any unblock must involve a username change, should we not use  in the instructions rather than ? Other than that, I like it. Mayalld (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: unblock-un doesn't allow for any text from the user except the new username.  So, I don't think that works.  Mangojuicetalk 02:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  spam-only accounts with promotional usernames 

message: I tried to edit this page and appear to have screwed it up, but am having trouble reverting my change.  Could someone please help out?  Thank you! Fasrad (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops, sorry! 

message: Why do we need templates for every little thing? I don't need to see a sea of icons when its backlogged, and they just in the way. What's their purpose? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. The page seems to be littered with declined usernames that have been templated. However using a template for something like "waiting for edit" or some such might be ok. -- Flyguy649 talk 16:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with EVula, and frankly find them more confusing than if people just typed what they meant. --MCB (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've nominated the template Template:UAA for deletion.  Mangojuicetalk 19:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hate those templates 

message: I said this after Wisdom89 asked about it on my user page, and figured it could use a wider audience.
There's been a lot of opposition to the kind of username reports that people make where we're supposed to block people with no evidence of wrongdoing, without discussing the problem with those users. (Particularly problematic are the ones where the only reason the person is being reported is a subjectively "confusing" username, so I'm glad we've settled on discouraging those in the policy.)
Should this be taken to mean UAA can't block anyone without discussion? Of course not. Wisdom89 brought up the kind of thing where users who have created spam pages are posted here in a massive list, and I responded:
:I don't agree at all with many of Calton's actions, but this is one of the more benign and possibly even useful things he does. He establishes evidence of spamming before he reports names to UAA, which is more than we get in most reports. Now, occasional blocks he requests seem unnecessary, and I think he might be better off reporting somewhere such as WT:WPSPAM (in which case he can report even the ones that aren't blatant in their usernames). It's kind of a shame that we're so lacking for a high-profile place to block spammers that the username policy has to fill in the job.
So, food for thought. Why do usernames get more attention than spam? So much more that we have to use the username policy to block spammers? Shouldn't there be a Wikipedia:Spammers for administrator attention that's just as efficient? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  04:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's important to emphasize strongly what I initially learned was the policy of UAA, even if that's changed because of the attitude of some admins: UAA is only for blatant, unquestionable policy violations. Patently foul language (Fucktard), defamatory names (Kateisacutter), names which match companies and products (CocaCola), and maybe totally confusing names (Kdjrwkhn, though this is not my style). Anything even slightly up in the air, such as promotional names without contribs or things that may be in a foreign language, are to be taken to the community discussion board (I forget the acronym, despite contributing there a long time ago). Spam is especially wishy-washy, and I don't think it's the ideal use of this page. If they are obvious spammers, just use AIV. VanTucky 04:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Spammers who choose spammy usernames are, in essence, pointing themselves out; they'll be blocked here faster than at the often rather congested AIV, which is helpful to the project. So I am grateful for the spam username reports, assuming they have actually made a spam/promotional edit or article creation. --MCB (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A question still remains. Should a user who has chosen a name which matches an organization, company, musicgroup etc..etc..and has edited maybe a few times in a promotional-like manner be blocked from editing? After all, the user may be unfamiliar with WP:U or WP:ADVERT. If they were approached via talking before and after their edits, they maybe persuaded to stop, as perhaps no malice or disruption was intended. Spamming has an extremely negative connotation to it. If they were to realize this, and contribute productively, does their alias matter all that much? Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a point. Also, Calton's on to bands now, and I find these to be considerably more out of place on UAA. These are just ordinary people who might be interested in Wikipedia and don't understand our standards for article inclusion. When someone writes an article about a non-notable band, we don't block them, we just speedy the article. If someone uses their band's name as their username but edits constructively, we don't care at all. But the intersection of the two means we need to block them indefinitely? That doesn't make sense. Also, I don't think "role accounts" enter into it at all. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  02:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Sigh. Remember how I said that Calton's listings were benign to helpful? Never mind. He seems to have missed the idea that UAA is for clear-cut cases that require blocks. Anyone who would restore previously-removed listings with a snarky edit comment is not using UAA in a helpful way. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  05:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh indeed. I'm sure he feels his reports are absolutely justified and in the best interest of the Wiki (spamming needs to be quenched), but that's not the proper attitude at all. They certainly shouldn't be relisted anyway, as I'm assuming an administrator removed them. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed them. (Which, unfortunately, is probably part of why he was so quick to revert.) The fact that I'm an administrator shouldn't be relevant, though; everyone who participates constructively has an equal say in policy issues. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  05:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I understand that completely. WP:NBD and admins aren't special : ), however, it's customary (at least from what I've seen) that admins will look at the listed names and then decide whether they should be removed, not the casual editor, even though it's perfectly fine to do so. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The bottom line, though, is simply that relisting them with that edit summary was uncalled for. It's missing the point of UAA. You can see my talk page for the brief exchange we had. As a courtesy, Calton should be invited to come here and participate in this discussion if he cares to. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On blocking actual spammers 

message: If you are looking for the usual username suspects, you may want to periodically run a check through grep:
*cock
*cunt
*fuck
*piss
*shit
*tits
Feel free to move this list to a subpage.
-- GregManninLB (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't  already run the Special:Log/newusers through a similar set of regular expressions?--VectorPotential Talk 18:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does. 1 != 2 15:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The usual suspects 

message: Has anyone else but me noticed that the New users log is displaying new user names twice? Special:Log/newusers I don't know where else to post this, so my apologies from the start. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. As soon as I posted this, someone appears to have fixed it. But if you scroll down, you can still see double names. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something Odd 

message: A heads-up for anyone watching usernames: unified login has been enabled for all users. We're starting to see usernames from other projects automatically created on enwiki.
If you see a surge in the number of apparently "confusing" usernames created, this is why. It is more important than ever not to block a username solely for being "confusing".
(Cross-posted to WT:U)
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  17:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unified login has begun 

message: Someone needs to investigate this further. I must have annoyed someone pretty good for them to want to create an account with MY REAL NAME and do page move vandalization. Please block their other account(s) and/or IP(s). - UtherSRG (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The account has been blocked, and, from what I can see, all the edits have been reverted. —BradV 02:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know this one account has been blocked, but they obviously have at least one other account or have editted using an IP. This is not a random account creation to make vandalism, it is a malicious user using an alternativ emeans of attacking. Please do a check_user or whatever else is needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{user|Stacey Robert Greenstein}} 

message: — A request was filed via WP:ACC for the above username to be created. I created it, but the request was subsequently rejected post rem per WP:U, as a misleading username which implies bot status. I wasn't so sure – firstly, the string "tool" doesn't automatically imply that the account is used for automated or semi-automated editing, and secondly, a Google search brings up a Yahoo ID and several profile/social networking profiles, suggesting that the name request was bona fide rather than intentionally misleading. Since a lot of these sorts of names go through UAA, I was wondering whether anyone could offer a third opinion. (No contribs as yet.) haz (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks to both of you; I've marked the account as cleared. Thanks again. haz (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Cabotool|Cabotool]] 

message: Isn't there supposed to be a Bot Reported section?<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is - it's just blank at the moment :) Shereth 05:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh alright. I was just confused and scared that since there is no Bot Reports section there, the bots would go crazy and wreak havoc. Ehh, worst case scenario. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot Reported 

message: I noticed some account is being created automatically. Once I reported an User:Vipbot, which was created automatically, but declined in UAA. But as far as I know "Bot" can only be approved via Bot Approvals Group. On the other hand, some accounts, such as:
*User:Luna Santin loves Gräwp's cock
*User:Avril Lavigne vandal loves Gräwp's cock
*User:Herbythyme loves Gräwp's massive cock
*User:Persian Poet Gal REALLY loves Gräwp's massive cock 
are blocked as they contained offensive term. So does it mean that user should not report any account (contains the term bot) that created automatically except those offensive user names. I want to know further about this matter. Thanks in advance --NAHID 08:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll chime in as I was the one who declined Vipbot.  The reason I declined to block it was because the account is a valid, approved bot on another project and the account was created automatically, meaning there was clearly no intent to masquerade as a bot here.  There is certainly no harm in continuing to report such accounts to UAA, but if you want to do the 'homework' yourself and see if it is an approved bot somewhere else (and not editing here) then it's really not a problem. Shereth 13:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated account 

message: Is there any reason we actually allow usernames with "behead" in them to be created?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because adding "behead" to the list of regexes in the blacklist would cause false positives. --MCB (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behead rrance* 

message: Hello,
 has never made any edit in this wiki. Is there any chance to get this account?
Another question:  has only made two edits four years ago. What's with such accounts? Is there any chance to get these accounts?
Thanks for any answer. It would be nice if you inform me at commons:User talk:Sven about your comment :-) --87.166.249.52 (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Responded on Commons. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Sven]]? 

message: Did there used to be something about adding new usernames to the bottom of the list? Has that changed to the top of the list now? Can it please be specified, as bots are adding to the bottom of their list, and users are adding theirs to the top of their list (except me, because I just did what I'm used to doing and put it at the bottom...) Thanks, Somno (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: New reports should go at the bottom, I think. But IIRC, Twinkle always adds its reports at the top, or at least used to. Not sure about Huggle. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding usernames 

message: Per this, the Mediawiki:Usernameblacklist is currently disabled due to a performance problem caused by complex expressions. There was a huge regex pertaining to Grawp that looks like the culprit, and it was removed, so hopefully it will be back on again soon. In the meantime, we need to keep a close eye on WP:UAA, since the usernames that were blocked in software can currently be created. The NameWatcherBot will post most (possibly all) of them on the UAA/Bot page, but this will still need extra attention until the blacklist is back in action. --MCB (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mediawiki:Usernameblacklist]] temporarily disabled 

message: I just added it back, because it is the recognition string that TW uses to place reports Mayalld (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can remove one line and stop TWINKLE reports? Sweet! Would anyone else support the idea of re-removing that line until TWINKLE starts following the username policy? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  17:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me? :) Shereth 17:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example line 

message: I have gone ahead and re-added the big red warning that shows up when someone uses the  template without specifying a reason why they think a username violates policy. Too many people are just slapping the template on people's talk pages without specifying what is wrong - in some cases this is not immediately obvious (e.g. User talk:Kennyhotz). If a username violation is so blatant that no explanation is needed, then that username should be reported to WP:UAA. If you want to discuss a username violation with a user, I think it is common courtesy to tell them exactly what the concern is. Is he back? (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason parameter for uw-username 

message: Okay, I've been stewing over this for a while and I think it's time I brought it up.
The first two bullet points of our handy-dandy template state:
* When you report a name here, you are asserting that the user with that name needs to be immediately blocked. Your report must explain what is problematic about the username, as not all violations of the username policy require blocks.
* For ordinary violations of the username policy, do not use this page. Instead, warn the user and ask them to change their name, possibly using the  template.
Is this being ignored?  I mean, seriously.  We're seeing an awful lot of pretty innocuous, if obnoxious, stuff on here.  Does some guy whose username is the name of his company pose so dire a threat that it needs to be immediately blocked?  I don't think so.  How many of these people are getting the warning with  prior to showing up on UAA?  Very few.  This is getting silly.
Would there be any agreement to altering our username policies and blocking procedures, with a statement to the effect that "With the exception of certain violations that require immediate administrator attention (such as blatantly offensive or disruptive usernames), accounts that violate the username policy should be warned with  prior to making a report at UAA.  Reports made to UAA without previously warning the user will be removed from the UAA page without action." 
I don't know about anyone else, but it's getting tedious having to deal with all of these borderline cases that aren't really doing any harm. Shereth 17:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the best interests of the project are served by blocking spammers on sight, and I think that position manifestly represents a consensus of editors and admins, by their actions in reporting, and blocking, promotional user names. Registering an account User:XYZ Company and creating the article XYZ Company will, and should be, blocked.  That is not a legitimate use of Wikipedia, spam is a form of vandalism, and blocking them is a pretty simple case of WP:RBI.  In the rare event that someone who does that actually wants to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, they can register another user name. In addition to the direct reduction of spam and promotional articles, there is also an indirect effect: if readers see the user name User:XYZ Company, they will think it is acceptable to use their company (band, school, organization, club, gaming clan, etc.) name too and you get a reinforcement effect. --MCB (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But is there no room for separation between "spammers" and "new users unfamiliar with policy"?  Look at it from the perspective of someone who checks out Wikipedia, sees the articles on well-known companies such as Ford Motor Company and Sears, Roebuck and Company.  Said new user thinks "Hey, cool, I could write an article on the company I own/work for!"  Not being familiar with our policies and procedures, they go ahead and write an article without citations and with "spammy" links and, worse still, decide to register under a user name that refers to the company.  Overzealous editors immediately assume "Aha! Spammer!" and zap them with the block - said user is understandably confused and offended and never comes back.  Who is to say that a significant number of them might not respond better to appropriate warnings, decide to familiarize themselves with policy and guidelines once they are made more aware of them, and go on to be a valuable contributor?  Assuming someone is a vandal because their first few edits are not helpful is unwise, and assuming someone is a spammer just because their first few edits look spammy is also against the core spirit of what Wikipedia is.  Where is the assumption of good faith?  Where is the not biting the newcomers?  Certainly there is a better approach to this "shoot first, ask later" going on. Shereth 18:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, company names that advertise do need to be immediately blocked, it is our policy. We don't allow spam anywhere else, why here? We block names that are promotional in nature. I user who does not know this is given a very polite template explaining what happened and how to create a new account. Chillum 18:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is false.  Nowhere in the policy does it say "company names" should be immediately blocked - in fact the policy states use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited.  Some administrators seem to have adopted a personal policy of "block all company names".  This issue should be clarified one way or another. Shereth 18:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chillum said "company names that advertise", not "company names". And the policy prohibits promotional usernames: "Promotional usernames are used to promote a group or company on Wikipedia." So while User:XYZ Company may not be prohibited per se, they sure are if they spam for their company name or their product/service. --MCB (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then they should be dealt with through the proper channels as a spammer, not as a username violation.  The core of the problem here is the interpretation of the key line in the policy: "Promotional usernames are used to promote a group or company on Wikipedia."  Is this to be interpreted as "A user account with a company name as a user name, who goes on to use said account to promote said company", versus "A user account with a name that is directly promotional of a company".    There exists a lot of "room for interpretation" as far as what constitutes outright spam.  Chillum correctly points out that even those blocked get a polite template explaining how to remedy the situation (assuming  is used rather than , which is not always the case).  As polite as the template may seem, the act of being blocked without warning sends a pretty strong message that may well drown out any of the nice language in the block template.  But I would ask the following in any case: where is the real harm in asking users to discuss these "subject to interpretation" cases with the user prior to firing off a UAA report? Shereth 18:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Empirically speeking, how often do we get a user with name User:XYZ Company/Band who is not, in fact, there to write an article about their company/band? (And I can't speak for others, but I don't use a hardblock for those, though in blatant cases I can and do use the spamusername block; hblock is for the nasty jokes, the harassment, etc.) --Orange Mike  |  Talk 18:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This question is impossible to objectively answer when the current practice is to block them on sight - there is no way to know what else they may be interested in writing.  For what it is worth, though, you're describing a WP:COI issue, but I get the gist of where you are going.  I think, really, that my whole point is that current practice does not allow for the differentiation between users who are here just to spam, and those who are making a good-faith effort to write about something they probably should not (COI again).  I still stand by my opinion that we ought to be assuming good faith and giving these users a chance to familiarize themselves with the way Wikipedia works and contribute, rather than assuming their intentions are merely to spam. Shereth 18:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, I'm going to chill out and leave this discussion alone for a bit and give some others a chance to discuss :D  I just wanted to clarify what my primary point of contention was. Shereth 19:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't judge users on what that mightmaycouldsomedaysorta do, we judge them on what they've done -- and in the cases under question, what they've done is tried to use Wikipedia to promote themselves. Seems cut-and-dried to me. --Calton | Talk 23:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your work eliminating spam and nearlyMySpace pages sneakily disguised as userpages is the most important job on earth and makes Baby Jesus smile. FishNewbieWikiNoob (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, it isn't, Mr. Sockpuppet, but you just keep thinking there, Butch, it's what you do best. --Calton | Talk 23:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutralhomer had the right idea. FishNewbieWikiNoob (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in policy/procedure? 

message: Given User:Shereth's eccentric interpretation of policy and apparent lack of support for same, I'm restoring several items he removed from the page, for consideration by others. --Calton | Talk 23:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not after they have been declined twice (once my User:Rspeer, once by myself).  Continuing to do so until you find an administrator who is sympathetic to your point of view is highly inappropriate.  If you disagree with the decision made twice by two independent administrators the situation should be handled in a manner other than continuing to revert it. Shereth 23:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even wrong: Rspeer was reverted by another admin (User:MCB) and admonished, and the talk page discussion above shows your judgment is not in line with actual policy and actual practice. Relisting your problematic and unilateral removals for consideration by others is the right thing to do. What, exactly, are you afraid of? --Calton | Talk 23:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not afraid of anything - but going through my contributions and cherry-picking some entries that I have declined in the past is extremely poor form.  You've been admonished in the past for being a little over-eager with UAA reports, but you know what, if it is your personal mission to make sure that every borderline case gets slammed with a block, so be it.  Honestly, if the majority opinion here is to run willy-nilly with the block button and continue striking down names that someone just might find offensive, ones that might possibly be promotional, or the like, then whatever.  I can't really be arsed with trying to enforce some modicum of civility and trying to be more forgiving of newcomers' mistakes when it is apparently OK to dig about and repost my decisions until someone is willing to overturn them - there are other areas of the 'pedia I can edit.  Have fun. Shereth 00:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring entries 

message: Look. It is clear that there are editors on this page who despise each other, sometimes for reasons going far back in time and extending far beyond UAA. And some of them are admins. We don't have to keep clarifying that any more.
Can we return to the issues? Lest anyone else insinuate that I am promoting spam, let me clarify that blocking spammers is a very good thing to do, but trying to manipulate the username policy to do so hinders that goal. The baseline for the username policy is that we block people for promotion when their username in itself is an advertisement. Some want to extend this to any username that mentions a company's name, and the border between those has been debated for months. (See WT:U for that discussion.)
My position is that blocking people with names that mention a company (presumably their company) actually hinders the goal of tracking down and blocking spammers, and preventing COI issues from arising. When people with a COI declare it proudly in their username, it helps us. If we give them a username block, we're inviting them to come back and hide their motives from us next time.
It is easiest to stop people from spamming or editing with an inappropriate conflict of interest when we know who they are. By all means keep tabs on the user, give them a warning or two, and if they actually are behaving badly give them a hardblock. Maybe try using WP:COIN more to get other people's attention. The misapplied username blocks solve nothing. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  19:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough with the sniping, back to the issues 

message: I came across User:February 15, 2009. I don't know much of username policies, but I'm not sure if this name is acceptable. What should I do? MrKIA11 (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably be a good idea to drop  on his talk page as a first step. It's not offensive or promotional (unless it's a movie release date or something like that). It may be confusing, but more input from other editors would be good on that point. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 14:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does happen to be the same date as the 2009 NBA All-Star Game. Does that change the matter? MrKIA11 (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, really. I was thinking more along the lines of Cloverfield, which, for a long time, was only identified as its release date. TN‑X-Man 15:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering he has not edited that article, nor has he edited 2009 Daytona 500 or National Flag of Canada Day, no it doesn't. But the second he edits Canadian Flag Day...we'll get him and prove our current operating theory that he's an undercover agent for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police deliberately flooding Wikipedia with his subtle pro-Mountie agenda... :) --SmashvilleBONK! 15:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And to think that I trusted their poster boy. TN‑X-Man 15:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

text: He's already been blocked once in the last week on a different matter, which means many people were aware of the name. The username is weird, but not against any policies. It looks like he's been more civil since the block was lifted, too. --SmashvilleBONK! 15:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

text: No WP:U violation, just oddness. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, don't see a username violation either. --MCB (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Username 

message: Recently, I've seen a few usernames automatically reported for containing "bambi", which is apparently linked to teletubbies. Does anyone know the reasoning behind this flag? Thanks! TN‑X-Man 14:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me. I would think they would blocked more quickly for vandalism than a username violation, as the usernames are not blatant problems. FWIW, I don't think I've run across the Disney Vandal before. S/he sounds like a bad Batman villian or something. TN‑X-Man 15:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at :Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101, he/she doesn't even seem to be that prolific. I question whether we actually need this on the blacklist, considering the ratio of false positives to actual socks (I've only seen one at UAA so far). The editors of the affected articles seem to be getting them blocked quickly enough anyway... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably have to be a new page as I don't know of any other active pages to which it would be easy to merge this functionality into; I imagine something like Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/suspect usernames. Icewedge (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is possible to have the bot report to an existing page - using the USE_HEADER flag, the bot will add a header to the report, so that it can be reported to s noticeboard, for example. Is he back? (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not talking about the technical problems, which as you say would be easily overcome, what I was saying that I don't know of any page where such a section would logical mesh with the pages current function. Icewedge (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

text: This can be done simply by editing the appropriate patterns on the bot's blacklist page and adding the ALTERNATE_TARGET flag to them, as well as ensuring that the target page has the string "" somewhere in its wikitext.  I'm not an admin, so I can't make changes to the blacklist, but I certainly have no objection to these changes being made - whatever makes the most sense for the wiki and admins who have to deal with the reports is fine with me. —Krellis (Talk) 13:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One additional quick note, I'm not very active on-wiki, so please leave a note on my talk page or shoot me a quick e-mail if there are further questions that require my input here - I have this page watchlisted but it's quite possible I'll miss something if it gets lost in the noise of other stuff on my watchlist.  Thanks! —Krellis (Talk) 13:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Cool. Good work, Ioeth! TN‑X-Man 14:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And it has its first report already!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious to see how long it will be before it is acted upon. TN‑X-Man 15:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably for a while.  That's the whole point of reporting it there instead of here; so it can be monitored over a week or two since it's not a blatant violation.  I just hope folks notice the new section!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Watcher Bot question 

message: Thanks for the help, Krellis!  I'm sure that everyone will be excited to hear that I've made all of the appropriate changes to set up WP:SSP/BOT!  I edited the blacklist so that the name watcher bot will report all non-blatant suspected sockpuppet accounts to this page rather than WP:UAA.  I also included the page at the bottom of WP:SSP in the same way that the bot page is included at WP:UAA.  Please let me know if there is anything else I should do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioeth (talk • contribs) 
:Cool. Good work, Ioeth! TN‑X-Man 14:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And it has its first report already!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious to see how long it will be before it is acted upon. TN‑X-Man 15:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably for a while.  That's the whole point of reporting it there instead of here; so it can be monitored over a week or two since it's not a blatant violation.  I just hope folks notice the new section!  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request Completed

message: Hi, I've have seen some bad usernames as part of the US elections. Since new users are unified now, could you report them on m:Steward requests/Global so they can't spread to other wikis. Thanks. Techman224Talk 03:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the sentiment but that sounds unnecessary. The other projects/languages can deal with the bad usernames if they ever do LogIn to their Wiki (a local username is not created, only reserved, until they actually LogIn). Blocking every single username we block here would be just way too much work for our few stewards IMHO. Icewedge (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting Admins to report for Global Locking 

message: What exactly are we supposed to be doing with these? Obviously we block if they've blatantly been registered for trolling/personal attacks on the politicians - but has there been some recent ruling that I'm unaware of that prohibits any and all reference to the US presidential/vice presidential candidates in usernames? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My philosophy is, it's worth looking to see if they're vandalizing or saying something nasty about a candidate in their username.  Also, some of these border closely on impersonation which is blockable.  But I think that "fan" usernames (e.g. "Obamarocks" or the current "Obamawins") are not great username choices but are certainly not blockable.  Mangojuicetalk 05:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama/McCain/etc. usernames? 

message: The bot that updates this page (User:HBC AIV helperbot3) has a thing where it will leave a "backlog" template if the page grows over a certain size, encouraging admins to come in and clean it out.
Now, this doesn't seem to fit with the way the page is currently used. We often leave names up for discussion, and this discussion is a good thing. (Although it would of course be better if people used more sensible processes, so that we could use this page only for the names that don't require any discussion, that won't happen as long as TWINKLE points people here.) I've said before that it's important to have some feedback about which reports are appropriate for UAA and which are not, and the brief period of discussion on each name provides that somewhat.
But the names under discussion aren't "backlogged". I'd prefer that the helperbot didn't post the backlog notice, or at least used a much higher threshold. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  21:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is specifically why the holding pen was created.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 01:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't find that a very useful way to use the holding pen. I understand the holding pen when it's for "this might be a problem if the user edits a certain way, so let's wait until we find out". But the point of discussing usernames is so that people on UAA see the discussion. Most people aren't watching the holding pen very carefully, so it would be a poor place for discussion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  05:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "backlog" notice is unhelpful 

message: I noticed that most names auto-listed because of the string "public" contain the word "republic" (or "republican") and end up being removed as false positives. I think that whitelisting the word "republic" will prevent a lot of false positives from being listed, but will probably not interfere with the listing of promotional usernames containing the word "public". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and have added "republic" to the whitelist.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitelist the word "republic" 

message: Hey folks,
I just blocked  after a post to AIV. I blocked him for 12 hours, then noticed his username was "Sexx". So, I came here and made a post to notice board. I am not at all knowledgeable about how the username policy works or is carried out; thus, I hoped someone more knowledgeable could follow the appropriate course of action.
Oh, and I posted to the actual board, but the bot removes my post because I've already blocked the user. Could someone advise how this scenario is typically handled? Thx. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not particularly a username violation by itself, unless we're all Puritans. It's likely a vandalism-only account, however. Username violations are dealt with by either blocking or discussion, depending on the severity. When blocking for username violations alone, account creation may be enabled or disabled as needed. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll ignore the username issue, as you say it's not a direct violation. After his block expires I'll keep an eye on him and address based on that (most likely, the username isn't the most pressing concern). Thanks for your help, the username arena is something I'm not very involved in. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. "Sexx" is not, of itself, a username violation. -- The Anome (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly disruptive username? 

message: I just came across User:TheKOOLKIDSKLUB. After leaving a welcome message on his/her talkpage, it occurred to me that this username could be seen as "The KKK." I'm hesitant to take any action, as I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to username policy, so I thought I get some additional input. Cheers, faithless (speak) 00:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What you may want to do is leave  on the user's talk page. If they respond, you're set. If not, just monitor their edits. Based on the username alone, I think it's OK, but others may have a different opinion. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 04:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback, Tnxman. I've been keeping an eye on him, and he hasn't edited since, so we can probably let sleeping dogs lie. I've come across another which concerns me, however. Though he seems to be a constructive (or at least well-meaning) editor, User:DCsniper207 brings to mind John Allen Muhammad and the Beltway sniper attacks. I certainly don't intend to block him, as he is in no way a vandal, but is this a situation where the user should be asked to change their username, or am I making too much of this? faithless (speak) 06:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I agree that something should be mentioned to the user. I don't know about anyone else, but that name sets my spidey-sense off. TN‑X-Man 12:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for another timely reply, Tnxman. Anyone else care to weigh in? faithless (speak) 09:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... I wouldn't block right now, but encourage to change his name as it may be seen as glorifying a crime.  I know there is an essay or guideline on that, but I can't find it right now.  I might not have a problem with it if it were something else, but since the DC Sniper is a known crime spree, it changes the parameters.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 09:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a second opinion 

message: I reported User: UNITAN COMMUNICATIONS, and the bot removed the report from the list with the comment that they were already indef blocked, but the log does not seem to reflect this. So, what am I missing is my question I guess. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, the block log] I see shows that it was indef blocked in May. --MCB (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  blocked? 

message: User:CieloEstrellado had been reverting all the changes I made in the List of countries by of Human Development Index article. I spent more than two hours on thursday night updating the page with the 2008 report. I had mistakes and I fixed it with the help of other members but he came today and changed the whole thing claiming it was inaccurate. I retrieved all the information from the UNDP websites I even told which documents should be downloaded to see the report, the rankings and the values for every country and he made a disaster out of it. I didn't want to go to an edit war but I had to because I spent too much time updating the page and fixing it. Then the user came up and said it was inaccurate and changed the whole thing and he didn't explain anything in the talk page. I contacted him and he didnt tell me why he made the changes he just said it was inaccurate. Please block this user or at least block him from editing the article. He vandalized my work. Tony0106 (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Of course your errors might be corrected by others; it's the nature of the game, you have to accept this. I did explain why I was making those changes, in no less than three pages: Talk:List of countries by Human Development Index, Talk:Human Development Index and your talk page. Take it easy. ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Tony, as an independent observer, I'd say that it is you that appears to be engaged in the unreasonable behaviour by reverting other editors' good faith changes in order to preserve "your" version of the article. Cielo certainly isn't engaged in vandalism. You need to work together on this. Incidentally, this page is the wrong one to raise these issues. If you believe it is vandalism it should be at WP:AIV, if you are concerned about behaviour you could try WP:ANI and if you are in an "edit war", try WP:3RR. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 10:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: QuiteUnusual is correct in that this is the improper page to raise these concerns. You may want to look at the dispute resolution process as a way to alleviate your concerns. I believe that CieloEstrellado translates to "starred sky" and thus is an acceptable username. TN‑X-Man 14:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please block USER: CieloEstrellado 

message: I often argue against applying username blocks for "promotional usernames". Particularly, I think many of these belong on WP:COIN, because the username isn't actually the problem, it just highlights the problem.
On the other hand, I'd like to give a positive example of when it makes perfect sense to put an immediate username block on someone for promotion. I've just blocked User:Drsoledotcom. Is the problem that it's a URL? No, lots of URLs are non-promotional and just used as online handles. But this URL in fact points to an online store that wants to sell you clothing. It could hypothetically benefit from having what's nearly a link to it appear in Wikipedia edit histories. This is a clear case where the username actually is what's doing the promotion.
If the user had actually made any promotional edits, that might merit a hardblock for spamming, but the user had only made one pointless edit so far, so I placed a softblock. rspεεr (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is when you insta-block for a promotional username 

message: I want to comment on the name "dts illuminazione", but cannot because when I click the edit section, it does not appear in the edit screen. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had that happen when the server runs a little behind. The name was removed shortly after it was reported. Have you tried purging? It might resolve the issue. TN‑X-Man 19:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible to comment 

message: Is the bot still working? I haven't seen a report since yesterday. I mean, maybe we're getting lucky, but it seems odd. TN‑X-Man 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NameWatcherBot 

message: Perhaps the bot could be improved to detect. Inc, LLC, Corporation for promotional usernames. I hope I've been some help in going through the last several thousand usernames. ~.^ --Smallman12q (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot misses 

message: When it comes to companies, political groups,, that sort of thing,, it seems pretty obvious that using the organization's name as a username is a violation of username policy. Where it gets a little gray for me is when somebody comes along and creates an article about some no-name band, the article is speedy deleted, and then they get reported here because their username is the same as the band. If the band is some no-name teenage basement band, and the article is gone, is there really a problem anymore? Or, more to the point, does it serve any real purpose to block the account? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Organization and group names are problematic on many levels.  Let's take the example of a fan of a band, who chooses the band's name as their username.  They aren't breaking WP:COI.  But their username is still promotional or has the potential to be promotional.  There's also the issue that their name is misleading: it sounds like they ARE the band, rather than fans.  I think if the band is a serious band, i.e. has gigs and is trying to get their music out there, then these issues continue to be a problem after the article is deleted.  Of course, if a band is just something the user's buddy in school does and is totally amateur, there isn't a problem.  And sometimes this whole issue gets close to the real name thing: people often use their real name as the name of a business or a musical group, and yet users should be allowed to use their real name while editing if they choose to.  Mangojuicetalk 15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your feedback on this Mango. Interestingly, this has just come up again. User:Megsmorrison created Megs Morrison, which I nommed for a speedy as it was blatant advertising. The name is apparently the name of the main character in a series of children's books. Now, you may note that my own username is based on a fictional character, Zaphod Beeblebrox, so I haven't reported this name here. Seems like if they keep spamming, they'll end up getting blocked for that, and the name isn't overtly promotional. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fine line between spam and fan 

message: What's wrong with using "idiot" in your username?  --98.162.148.46 (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Name calling isn't nice. Chillum 15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A username like "YouIdiot" or "ShutupIdiot" would be too offensive to edit harmoniously.  But idiot can be used in lots of usernames that aren't inappropriate... "Idiotbox" or "IdiotaticExpression" or "Vidiot" would all be perfectly fine.  Even swear words aren't universally unacceptable as username substrings.  Mangojuicetalk 15:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "IdiotaticExpression"? Never heard that one. LOL. I agree with your reasoning and don't see a problem in those cases except when it is insulting someone as in your first examples. -- Alexf(talk) 15:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idiot 

message: My understanding is that we block bot usernames as inappropriate usernames, unless there is evidence in place that the account is really a bot, and has approval.  I think this approach is wrong, because it will inevitably interfere with the proper creation and running of bots.  I do believe that a new user choosing a name that makes them sound like a bot is making a poor choice, and should be encouraged to change username.  However, I think we have a general problem with blocking bot accounts because: (1) If the wrong settings are used, we might inadvertently block the whole toolserver, (2) Bots do not always need approval: note from the WP:Bot policy: In addition, any bot or automated editing process that affects only the operators' user and talk pages (or subpages thereof), and which are not otherwise disruptive, may be run without prior approval.  (3) Even proper Bots may exist for some period of time without official approval.  And in the end, (4) a user having "bot" in their username when they aren't a bot just isn't a big problem for anyone.  It has the potential to be a problem if the user acts as if they are a bot, but that should be rare and there's always WP:RFCN for such cases.  (To my mind, a user with "bot" in their name that includes a note on their user page saying they aren't a bot, ought to be allowed to keep the username.)  Mangojuicetalk 15:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *You may have something there. I'm not sure about blocking the whole toolserver, that probably would have happened by now if it were an issue, but as a non-admin I'm not really up on that sort of thing. But it does take a lot of names off the table that could be used otherwise. Even User:I'm not a bot would be blockable under the policy as it now stands, which seems a bit absurd. This seems like a case of a policy created with good intentions that doesn't really do much good in actual practice. However, if it's going to be changed I think a venue with a wider audience is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot usernames: an issue with our approach 

message: The practice of replying to the bot, saying things like "not a blatant violation" or "seems to be a false positive", is getting irritating. It's hardly surprising that the bot creates false positives. It's certainly not something that needs to be discussed every time it happens. The thing to do is to remove the false positives, not to reply to them. The bot can't understand the reply and other viewers of UAA don't need the obvious pointed out.
Sorry for the bit of a rant. rspεεr (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have noticed this too. It doesn't bother me as much as it does Rspeer, but it does strike me as a bit silly to have a conversation with an automated process that is not going to reply to remarks. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *On the other hand, the main reason the bot is replied to is because it has reported someone who hasn't actually made any edits yet. Maybe a software fix is in order? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The individual blacklist entries can be set to only report once a user has edited.  IMO, this should be used for almost all things we check for; I frequently go into the blacklist and add "WAIT_TILL_EDIT" to a lot of the entries but it's been a while.  Mangojuicetalk 14:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replying to the bot 

message: I noticed there's a Wikipedia ad for WP:UAA; you can see it here: :File:Qxz-ad123.gif.  Personally, I would really like to have that ad removed from rotation.  I've felt for a long time that Twinkle and other automated tools should not have included username reporting features; users should not be encouraged to report usernames, because they will often have poor judgment about what is inappropriate.  It's fine to make mistakes in other venues like AFD or AIV but here, there's a major potential for biting the newcomers.  I'm not sure what has to be done to remove the ad, it looks like we might have to get the image deleted.  Mangojuicetalk 14:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiad 

message: This might not be feasible, but I would think that a bot could also report usernames to UAA those who exactly (or near-exactly) match an article that they recently created (say, for instance, within a 20-minute timeframe). This would save on the manual reporting of usernames who match company articles they have very recintly created to UAA. However, I would forsee a problem of such a bot reporting usernames that match non-company articles such as autobiographies. Any thoughts? MuZemike 00:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good idea and that you should pursue it at WP:BOTR. Sincerely, Skomorokh 19:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created articles and username match 

message: When a user has only one contribution, an article or a page about a company that's been speedy-deleted as advertising/promotional, and their username is obviously meant to match the company but isn't a copy of the company name, should I indef-block them?  Example from today: "Blueplymouth", for the Blue Lan Group based out of Plymouth Mass.  Yesterday, I deleted an article from something like User:MRG1995a, where the company was "MRG Associates". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a judgment call. Blueplymouth is probably OK. When I look at reports, I try to gauge how much of a leap it is from the username to the company. If I really have to stretch to make it fit or wouldn't make the association without knowing of the company, I let it go. TNXMan 14:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds about right. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near matches to company names 

message: If people find it useful, I will gladly spend a few hours and program a new feature into the name watcher bot.
The feature is that when it sees the "" template is added to a name on the UAA, it would check every so often to see if the user has in fact edited and if so make note of it by the user's report.
Is this the sort of feature people will find useful? If so I can start coding it soon. Chillum 21:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! That is an excellent feature. I've been trying to keep up more with usernames that I tag with . This sounds like it would work out well. TNXMan 00:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Most definitely. Go for it! Malinaccier (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be helpful. bibliomaniac15 01:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offering a new bot feature 

message: Is anyone there?  No one has been looking at the Usernames that have been reported. --Abce2 (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All at the moment have either been blocked or reviewed. --Smashvilletalk 01:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Most reports are handled within a matter of minutes. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello? 

message: It seems that there is constantly a backlog here. Perhaps we could install clerks to separate violations from non-violations, ie. removing the incorrect reports so admins don't have to? Ceranllama chat post 01:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I feel that we handle reports pretty quickly. The most obvious violations are blocked almost immediately and the names that need more discussion are also handled pretty fast. As I type this, all of the reports listed have been reviewed except for one (which, as soon as I finish here, I'll take a look at). It would be interesting, though, to compare our response time here with that of other noticeboards (SPI, CSD, etc) TNXMan 14:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's needed, to be honest. As Tnxman307 mentioned, most reports are handled within a few minutes. Also, the backlog limit isn't all that high. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, clerks will not necessarily have the experience level or the policy knowledge that admins have in order to judge whether reports are violations or not. Malinaccier (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also knowledgeable editors who are not admins already mark non-blatants as such by 'discussing with user', etc. Nja247 07:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nja247 - is it really appropriate for non-admins to help out here?  If so, why?  The name of this project implies that reported usernames will get administrator attention.  Why let non-admins with less experience than many of the reporting editors kick reports off the page?     7   talk | Δ |   02:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Just wanted to follow up on the timeliness comment above, as of right now  there is an 10 hour untouched backlog on UAA.     7   talk | Δ |   06:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is appropriate for non-admins to help here (actually, I was involved here long before I became an admin). There are several things that can be done that do not require a admin flag - removing false positives, commenting on reports, etc. There is (or should be) a tacit understanding that any borderline cases should be left for an admin to review. TNXMan 13:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerks? 

message: I always try to block only the most blatant violations but even so I receive a few emails apologizing and requesting a username change... is the 'blocking on sight' clause perhaps too harsh? It seems that we even give vandals more leeway than those with the wrong username. Thoughts? -- Mentifisto 13:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I receive those quite a few of those, as well. If they agree to change their username, then you can just unblock them per AGF. On a related note, there's a discussion regarding promotional usernames at WT:U. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hasty blockings 

message: FYI, I have attempted to start discussion about this page at WP:AN#Username blocks - can we clear this up once and for all?!  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above, currently this is discussed most actively at the policy talk page. henrik•talk 19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to get a final answer... 

message: It seems the "wait until the user edits" template is used very frequently... which essentially indicates that the decision is going to be based on edits, not anything else. So isn't this redundant to AIV which handles cases just on the edits made? Don't they all ultimately be decided like that? -- Mentifisto 08:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is useful for determining if a username is promotional. Law type! snype? 01:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hoping for someone as experienced as Mentifesto would point that out.  Per my comments immediately above here (as JCutter before my name changed), if need to "wait" for the user to edit to see if their name is spammy, then we can certainly use the combination of their name + the edits they have made to decide that the spam is blatant / obvious.      7   talk | Δ |   09:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Earlier there was a mention of a bot that would move those names marked with a  to some sort of holding pen and then move them back to the noticeboard once the account edits. I haven't heard any more info on it, however. I think it would be a pretty good solution. TNXMan 11:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, isn't it already doing that? Under some of the bot reported ones, it says "This report was delayed until the user edited.", which I assumes means it moved the report back after the user edited.ƒingersonRoids 02:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See, I thought there were two kinds. There are 1) the reports that the bot waits to post until there is an edit and 2) reports that bot posts, recognizes later as being tagged with , removes, and then puts back once the user does indeed edit. Although, I may have misunderstood Chillum's post. TNXMan 02:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of that template has evolved to cope with the fact that spam edits are reported here. It wasn't created because spam edits should be posted here. That's how I see it, anyway. It shouldn't really be here, but until people stop reporting spammers (rather than simply spam-usernames) here, it's necessary... Ale_Jrbtalk 09:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: It seems that many users get blocked because the name is equal to a company name. It seems this is not actually against policy. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You may find the discussion at this page of interest. A few editors and I were discussing this same issue. TNXMan 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company names 

message: I know I am not an administraotr however I have been watching this board for a while and I have noticed a trend as of late that we seem to be finding more creative reasons why a username isn't a good one.  For the most part I have agreed that some usernames are not appropriate but everyonce in a while someone casts a good argument for deleting one on what I would consider to be an otherwise good name.  For example there is one on here now that appears to be a name but contains bich so it popped up on the radar and another that seems to mimic jack bauer.  In regards to that one the editor that submitted it seems to think that people will think that the user condones the use of torture and although they might I think this one is a stretch.  There are A LOT of other user names in WP that I would think would be far more offensive than that such as Thefeargod (could offend people who are religious) or Hydrogen iodide (because it could be associated with illegal drug use or production). Which is to say that I don't agree with eliminating them either but I wanted to present them as examples. Even mine could be offensive because it starts with what would appear to be a bodily fluid (bit its pronounced koom). I just think that we should be wary of what we say is an inappropriate username and assume good faith or we may find ourselves on a slippery slope.--Kumioko (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick point that the our bot reported the username with "bich". While the name-watcher bot generally does a very good job, it does occasionally report false positives. As for the report concerning Jauerback, well, I've left a note about that. I'm glad you've taken an interest and would point out that WT:U is also a good place to discuss the username policy. TNXMan 11:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some are a stretch 

message: As has been made clear to this user, this is not an acceptable user name and therefore must be changed, seeing as the user was notified in May 2008 and has not changed the name as well as the fact that it has not made any edits then I don't feel the user was planning to take this seriously, I fell his account should be terminated for these reasons. 95jb14 (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont want to get my ear chewed here but is there a possibility, for instance, that a man could be named both Rudolf and Hess without any ill will? I understand the concern clearly but it is misguided or over the mark in this case. Even Barak Obama is called Hussein... I don't see words like Nazi or Jew in that username that is all I am saying. Even Santa's reindeer is called Rudolf... You should reinstate that username to put yourself above any prejudicial concern (pre-judge-ish-you). ~ R.T.G 18:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate what your saying but the person has been warned and whether intentional or not they are named after Adolf Hitler's Deputy in the Nazi Party, there will be many people who will take offence to this. I do not mean to be brash but the person hasn't even made one edit, he has no user page and has made no apparent effort to improve or ammend his name and yet has he been punished after over a year? Action needs to be taken, as far as I am concerned. 95jb14 (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The account was created a year ago and never used. It can be safely ignored. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a fair solution, though if it does the we will have to get in contact. Should it be removed from the UAA Page then? 95jb14 (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the username watching and am wain to debate the credit/discredit of the user (as nothing to debate anyway). But, when I looked through the names I saw a problem with Rudolf Hess and Jack Bauer. Hess, granted it is purley POV on what weight to give his personality (for me those nazi's are rarely seen and never heard and the individual names Rudolf and Hess obscure him quite sufficient). Jack Bauer then... how can you use a fictional character to devalue an individuals possible real name without some concern that the party intends to emulate or pursue the character...? I just think it is a slight overstretch. If you gathered people into groups of 100 you would gather more than 60, 000, 000 just to count all the people still living that have names. Is Hess, namesake of a Nobel Laureate, signifigant to precede all these people. No way. Jack Bauer? Not a chance. ~ R.T.G 20:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I would just point out that I am far from regularly contributing to username policy. Persons who are long enough dead or indeed have never been alive should forfeit the privelidge of being mistaken for a current specific living human just to make solid sense. Of course that is not related to the process involved when a person is feigning themselves off to be the actual person. It's sort of pie in the sky but I'd hate to think that a genuine Jack Bauer or Rudolf Hess was stopped from identifying themselves like that. If I thought you were anything but polite and reasonable I'd be jumping but I doubt that anyone is being morally wronged or anything. I do suspect that a genuine Jack or Rudolf would have found their way but I thinkn the onus should be on Jack to behave a certain way (not to show strong interests in 24:Jack Bauer) rather than to wear the infected armband. ~ R.T.G 20:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rudolf Hess 46 

message: I'll list a few of my indef promotional-username blocks here (not a hardblock, mild block notice) where I think there's consensus, but I'd appreciate anyone's input.  
*User:Ulyssesreborn.  Text: "Could the latest work by artist Ulysses entitled “Rebirth” be the most expensive piece of art on display in New York City? ... Eager New York art collectors, including actress Cassandra Hepburn, recently waited outside the Chair and the Maiden Gallery in the West Village for the unveiling of famed artist Ulysses’ new work while the small space was packed with a party of enthused onlookers. ... The innovative work by Ulysses is currently being displayed at The Chair and the Maiden Gallery which is located at 19 Christopher Street in New York City. For more information go to: www.chairandthemaiden.com." - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure to be honest.  Neither of these, to me, scream "promotion" but can certainly be interpreted that way.  Paired with the edits shown it is pretty certain that a level of spammy behavior is evident.  I personally have some reservations about the heavy-handed nature in which we deal with "promotional" usernames - it is my belief that the user and his/her edits are promotional, not their username (with some exceptions).  That is neither here nor there, though, and current policy forbids user names which appear promotional and these were probably OK blocks. Shereth 20:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  The question I ask myself is: suppose someone else (possibly an alt account of theirs) writers a completely neutral article on the topic, which is in no danger of deletion, and then this user takes over most of the editing.  What are the odds that this username will be perceived as speaking for the company?  If the odds are high, then either it's a problem because they don't speak for the company, or else there's an unsolvable OWNership problem if they do speak for the company.  Better for them and everyone else to politely but firmly ask them to change usernames, which is what the block plus "this is often not a reflection on the user" warning does (although I'd favor new warning text that is more specific to this problem, just to make sure they don't misunderstand). - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

text: *I reported all three of the above so I agree they should have been blocked.  – ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soliciting comments 

message: They used to be discouraged, but per the June updates to WP:U they are now forbidden, and subject to immediate block.  This is a much needed improvement.      7   talk | Δ |   12:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This will alleviate so many things. Do you recommend a softblock to allow the user to choose a nonpromotional name? I'm leaning in that direction. Law type! snype? 12:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Softblock is reasonable... if repeat offender then COIN or SPAM should block with account creation disabled.  My 2c.     7   talk | Δ |   12:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly. Give them a chance and send them to COI if the problem isn't alleviated. Law type! snype? 12:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note, however, that this only applies to explicit company names. Initials or other other abbreviations should be handled at WP:COIN or other appropriate venues. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Blatant Promotion RfC, if anyone wants to chip in. Chillum made a point very similar to yours, Law (which I agree with as well). TNXMan 13:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company usernames are now a violation of [[WP:U]] 

message: Just checking ... I softblocked for failing the "squint" test (i.e., you don't have to squint to see the connection to the business Yellowpin, so OWNership issues would inevitably arise).  (Also a first-time contributor, also the tone was promotional.)  [Adopts Marlon Brando accept] Youz got a problem wid dat? - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - right, the user contributions were deleted so I cannot see them - but looking at the userpage, he was creating yellowpin - fine, no problem. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

text: AFAIK, there are 4 options, tell me your preference.  I used the first option, but I'd prefer the second option.  I'm not recommending anything, I'm just listing the different ways that I see this handled.
# Block with reason , and the warning that's usually associated with that, , which begins: "This account, JustinYellow, has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because your username does not meet our username policy.  This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username."
# Come up with a new standard warning specifically for this situation, and as long as the warning's clear, I wouldn't mind whether we say the policy is to block per  or ;
# Block with reason , and the associated warning, , which begins with a big red "X" and: "Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.  Why can't I edit Wikipedia?  Because Wikipedia does not allow any form of spam or other promotion ..."
# Block with reason #3 but give the warning #1 above. - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not happy with any of these options.  They all suggest that the choice of username itself is at issue.   There's nothing particularly promotional or in violation of policy about the username "JustinYellow".   The user's account should simply be blocked for their spamming activity, without any reference whatsoever to the username policy  which is not applicable to this situation.  As I see it, the only reason to block the account, is that the offender was logged in under that account while performing the abuse (therefore they own it).   It wouldn't matter if they picked a different username.  In fact, any future username they pick should be blocked just as quickly, as long as they are spamming, or conducting in the same manner --Mysidia (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, works for me, I'll unblock. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:JustinYellow]] 

message: See User:Lupin/badwords for another regex list that might be useful as a reference for this filter. (Note that because of its slightly different format, entries cannot be directly cut and pasted to this list.) -- The Anome (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another word blacklist 

message: I understand why this was placed on the blacklist, but I feel the furor has died down to a large extent. I want to go ahead and remove the regex entirely, but I'd like to get other opinions. Thoughts? TNXMan 20:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me. Most of the ones I saw were false positives anyway. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  TNXMan 12:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jackson" filter 

message: See: User talk:XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO. Now, this may be a mildly annoying username, but it's not actively disruptive or profane. Is there a good reason for this user to be repeatedly questioned and challenged about their name? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Unless it changed back very recently, we no longer block 'confusing' usernames under WP:U; give me a sec to double-check the policy though. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 22:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:UNCONF "In the uncommon case that an otherwise good-faith contributor deliberately ignores requests to change their username, and goes on using a name that other editors agree is too confusing, then that username may be blocked to prevent further disruption. (Though the latter practice is considered somewhat controversial)." Hmmm. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 22:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Nope. Without aggravating circumstances to show that the user is trying to be obnoxious, disruptive or perhaps duplicitous, haranguing people about a username that is "confusing" is really doing nothing to contribute to the encyclopedia at all and should really, really be avoided.  There is a bad precedent of administrators (or other editors) enforcing concerns about potential disruption when what we should really be doing is leaving people alone unless disruption actually happens.  Getting people wound up about "this could be disruptive" is every bit as disruptive, itself.  Shereth 22:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That username may be annoying to type, but is anyone really going to type that out rather than cut and paste it? The only people it could be really annoying to are those contributing from an early iphone with no cut and paste ;) If the user responds to the first requests satisfactorily there should be no reason for them to be repeatedly challenged about it. Although it may be a good idea for them to leave a message explaining so on their usepage just to avoid constant challenges in future. Mfield (Oi!) 22:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

text: No meaningful worries so far. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have shortened my signature to XO^10. Hopefully that will keep the micromanaging WP moderators at bay.--XO^10 (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a sense of humour is always a good thing. Dr.K. logos 23:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Or XO^10+XO^9+XO^8+XO^7+XO^6+XO^5+XO^4+XO^3+XO^2+XO^1+XO :-? Mfield (Oi!) 23:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In all fairness he never claimed he was a geometric series, but we could still abbreviate this using the sum of the series ;) Dr.K. logos 23:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

text: To my knowledge, no one else has requested that XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO change his username. Where was this mentioned? The section above was asking about his signature and how he remembers his name, but he wasn't asked to change it. I figured it was worth informing him that his username could cause issues and let him decide what he would do with it. No block was threatened, but, rather, a discussion took place about how it could be an issue. However, when I could tell that he was not interested (for whatever reasons) in changing it to another name that may not cause problems, I didn't worry about it & moved on. :) Shereth, I don't really think it's disruptive to explain this situation to a new user & let him decide what to do with the knowledge. hmwithτ 00:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *It seems a little bitey and overly bureaucratic/Kafka-esque to jam up a users page with messages about their username when it's not causing any actual problems, just imaginary ones like making "it very difficult for other users to find you or your userpages" when all of us know they could just click on the sig to access them. This is the sort of thing that can drive away users, the actual policies and guidelines are complicated enough without making up imaginary ones and asking people to follow them. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree with Beeblebrox. There is no legitimate reason to care. ⟳ausa کui × 06:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another "test case" for your perusal 

message: UAA participants may be interested in my post at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Draft revision of the policy.
rspεεr (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft revision of the policy (crosspost) 

message: *Re the bot that looks for inappropriate words in usernames: some Siamese (Thai language) personal names contain the syllable "porn" innocently. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  porn 

message: We have User:Vision Thing and User:Visionthing. Both have been around since March of 2006, with the two-word version being the older username by 3 days (the 19th versus the 22nd). V T has just recently posted a concern about this on the talk page of Vt in May. They don't generally edit the same sorts of articles. LadyofShalott 14:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that our user names are too similar, but I don't know what would be the best way to correct this. -- Vision  Thing -- 16:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a User:White Cat and a User:WhiteCat, and they have what amounts to hatnotes on their userpages.  Soon we will have User:Wordsmith and User:The Wordsmith as well, thanks to WP:CHU/U.  -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 16:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately there is nothing to be done here.  The accounts are both 3 years old, have both been at least somewhat active over the 3 years, and don't seem to have any significant amount of overlap in terms of where they edit.  If one or the other would be willing to undergo a namechange, that would help alleviate the problems, but there is no way we could force a namechange on either.  Hatnotes are a possibility, as well, but again I don't think there is anything that must be done. Shereth 16:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks all for replying. LadyofShalott 17:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are these names too similar? 

message: Why does the bot flag 'communism?' Are all political affiliations flagged? Is 'aristocracy' on the bot's list as well? I'm not seeing the possible username vio. Law type! snype? 21:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it might have something to do with the negative connotations that come with the term in the US, ie. calling someone a communist pig or commie scum.  Still, it does appear a little .. skewed, that the bot is flagging the word "communism" while leaving other forms of government out .. Shereth 21:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would mean that 'pig' or 'scum' should be flagged as the derogatory terms, right? Thinking globally, this flag needs to be removed. Law type! snype? 22:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections to removing it. Shereth 22:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Belated reply: It might have something to do with the "wikipedia is communism" meme that has been taken up by various vandals throughout time, rather than any bias against communism itself. Did it get removed from the blacklist?   -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 16:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear it's still on the blacklist after all.  -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 18:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that there's a difference between automatically reporting a username for administrator inspection and automatically blocking the user. If the latter we going on, there'd be a serious problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politically biased bot? 

message: What is the policy between using hard blocks and soft blocks for spam usernames? Triplestop x3 22:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What I do: If they're apparently editing under a promotional name just because they're clueless, I softblock them with  as the reason. This is for actually promotional names, mind you, not "their edits are promotional and they have a name". If they're spamming and hoping they get away with it, I click the "spamblock" link, to hardblock them with  as the reason. If the username only hints at a group, organization, or company, I don't block. I leave a warning about the conflict of interest policy, with a suggestion that they should change their username. rspεεr (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is making that distinction between the merely clueless and the actively promotional. You are more charitable than I in these matters; I feel that if an account with a name like :User:SallyAtFredCoPR is writing about :FredCo, that spamusername applies and should be used immediately. I perceive you and some other UAA regulars as feeling that this is not in and of itself proof of intention to commit "public relations"; i.e., to spam/promote/advertise/"raise our profile". --Orange Mike  |  Talk 17:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I think most people get the message with the soft block. Evil saltine (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard block or soft block 

message: Does anyone have any comment on or objection to having the namewatcherbot remove usernames from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/holding pen, that are subsequently blocked, in the same way that the bot removes names from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention? --Stephen 04:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful if it did, and it could extend reports for them if they do subsequently make edits as well. Mind you, I've never seen a large amount of names in this section. Not an unmanageable quantity anyway, but nevertheless helpful it would be. – B.hotep •talk• 07:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The regulars, including me, already do this. I don't think there's enough usernames, there's never a backlog in the holding pen. So this doesn't sound necessary. ceranthor 15:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holding pen bot update 

message: I have been out of UAA work for a while so please excuse if this has been already discussed. :Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over is way overloaded, with (as of this writing) more than 1200 entries! Many of those editors have been warned several months ago and have never been back to post or to respond (inactive accounts). Should we block the most blatant ones? Any other easy way to clean the backlog? -- Alexf(talk) 14:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone feels compelled to comb through them and find the blatant ones to block, all the more power to them - but given the size of the backlog it translates into lots of work for little benefit.  I would suggest a request be made at WP:BOTREQ (I would do it myself if I had more time) for a bot to go through the category and remove the ones that are stale (no edits in > 60 days, perhaps).  This should help pare down the backlog and what remains should be much simpler for a human editor to go through and determine if a block is necessary. Shereth 14:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. Given that I have some free time, and I must be bored, I'll do a few. If 60+ days is a good limit, I'll block anybody that has not answered since for that long. When a bot becomes available, this would then be done on a regular basis. If anybody has a different opinion, or thinks 60+ days is too much/not enough, please say so. If any editor complains for being blocked, considering they have been inactive for more than 60 days, it should be a good thing to wake them up. -- Alexf(talk) 14:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I blocked a few old ones, then realized the cat is still there. Went to look at :Category talk:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over (should have done in the first place) and see a bot request was already made as there's no easy way to clean up the Cat. -- Alexf(talk) 14:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually my whole point was to use a bot to simply un-categorize old ones so that no one would have to expend the wasted effort of blocking old accounts unlikely to be used.  In any event, a bot should also perform cleanup of the category based on editors who have been blocked. Shereth 15:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Can someone fill me in on what the point is of blocking inactive accounts... especially when the problem wasn't serious enough to block the first time? rspεεr (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If there wasn't enough concern they wouldn't have been on the list to begin with. Their contributions were to be measured as evidence to confirm or deny. They either left and wont come back after anything potential was happened (which means that a block was warranted) or they changed names (so a block is warranted to prevent socking). Either way, a block is warranted. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If a user hasn't responded to one of these messages it could be because the user hasn't logged in since receiving it, this doesn't mean that they have created a new account.  Also there are a few names in the category where the concern appears to be mistaken, for example Qwertbvcxz (no problem with apparently random names unless they are particularly long or confusing), BlackburnCorporationPark (not an organisation, maybe added by a bot because it contains the word "corporation"), and GamingAddict69 (user linked to a Youtube page with the same name, and this was mistaken for a company website). snigbrook (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that the second one is probably Soap (Corporation Park, Blackburn, which is an entity that can be soaped), and the third one is used for Soap as the only thing is a promotion of a youtube page. Both should be dealt with and should not be shrugged off. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They appear to be acceptable according to the username policy.  The second has not edited, and is no more promotional than RegentsPark, and the third appears to be just a user who uses the same name on other websites so the edits may be a problem but not the username. snigbrook (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Acceptable under WP:U? Since when? WP:ORGNAME still exists regardless if you want to think it doesn't. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it exists, and if there is a clear indication that an account represents an organisation or its username is chosen for promotional purposes it should be blocked – it's unclear why some accounts are blocked and others are warned – however anything that is not clearly disallowed should be discussed at WP:RFCN. snigbrook (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Relaxed enforcement in some cases is not a justification for more relaxed enforcement. Instead, it should be a sign that there should be no relaxed enforcement. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ORGNAME explicitly says nothing about enforcement. It's a recommendation for new users. I quote: "Note to username patrollers and administrators: This section is aimed at new users. It does not make recommendations about how to enforce the username policy; that section is below." As with everything, you enforce the username policy with common sense, not by applying rigid if-then rules. rspεεr (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If only everyone acted according to that last statement. Law type! snype? 05:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Common sense is very clear - if it goes against WP:U, you enforce it by not allowing people to have the name. Nothing more, nothing less, and I suggest that if you are here to bother working UAA you follow that, instead of your protecting people from the racist Wikipedia agenda that you were proclaiming on your talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. For those who are wondering what this is about, Ottava Rima has been arguing about the username policy on my talk page for a while, and has somehow gotten the idea that I am some sort of extremist race warrior. As the conversation veered to the irrelevant and off-topic, he got me to make the shocking admission that I think racism is really bad. Back on topic, "you enforce it by not allowing people to have the name" is wrong. We have a section of the policy about "dealing with inappropriate usernames", where blocking is a single option to be used in extreme cases. rspεεr (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up of Cat:Concern Over Usernames 

message: Just a sanity check, but unless the account is obviously being used for blatant and persistent spamming and other disruptive abuse, aren't we supposed to just soft-block usernames, which allows the person to create another account that doesn't violate the username policy? I've seen a couple of cases, especially in promotional usernames, in which blocking admins have blocked accounts harder than specified in policy (i.e. with account creation disabled). Is it also possible that many admins still yet have not read and gotten familiar with the newly-revised username policy (which was revised, as everyone here should know, a little over a month ago)? MuZemike 17:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this ties in with Triplestop's query made above that went unaddressed. MuZemike 17:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I thought that was assumed. We're blocking the username, not the user. Evil saltine (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind, of course, that you can't block a username without blocking a user too. A softblock is still a block, and should not be done unnecessarily. A hardblock, even more so. By now I'm just repeating policy, but it can't hurt: admins should always evaluate the severity of the situation and apply whatever remedy is appropriate, whether it's a friendly "hey, what's the deal with your name?" or a quick hardblock. rspεεr (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm a little bit out of touch with how blocking policy is applied.  Certainly admins sometimes make mistakes when blocking.  There are obvious problems with this - new editors have no idea what a soft or hard block is, and won't now how to appeal, or who to appeal to, or the right language to use to make people understand the problem.  They can face further sanctions because they "misuse" the -unblock request block template.  So, it's really BITEy, and admins must not do it, but mistakes happen, and 'we' shouldn't be to aggro with admins who are making occasional mistakes.  There is a vociferous group of people who say that "promotional accounts" are only here to damage the project and insert spam.  I'm sympathetic to that point of view; a few accounts are only here to add links everywhere.  But many promotional accounts are here to add an article about something they think needs an article - maybe the group they work for.  Allowing these users to declare their COI through the username, and giving them advice and guidance about COI can benefit the project. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Like so many other things, it's case-by-case. If all they've done is create a spammy user page of the same name as their account, I go with the softblock. If I see three or more instances of obvious spamming I usually go with the hard block and the more sternly worded blocking notice. However, in response to the above message, policy does not allow promotional usernames to edit. They can declare their COI on their talk page or whatever, but using a corporate or organization name as their username is directly contrary to policy. 
Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking on violating usernames 

message: Recently I was on Special:Listusers to check a particular user's permissions. I noticed numerous similar usernames that were... well, to call them libelous would be a massive understatement. More like they were horrifically insulting to the main user of that name. The accounts were username hardblocked, but the names still show up in the list. What should be done about these? I know we can't really delete them but can they be renamed or otherwise suppressed from normal view? I checked a couple other high-profile users here and found similar attack names after their entry as well... I know we're not censored, but this seems like a case where deletes might be worthwhile. Thoughts? ArakunemTalk 14:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they can be supressed - instructions on how to request such are at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for egregious problems. Shereth 15:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I almost think of those as badges of honor; I vaguely recall there was a user account created named something like User:ShoveOrangeMikeInTheOvens after I was doing some vandalism removal that was Holocaust-related. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 22:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we suppress/hide/delete usernames? 

message: An editor makes 2 good faith edits, then stops editing for a year.  An admin blocks them for having a confusing username (the username appears to be a random string of characters.) Is there a problem with this, or is it normal behaviour?  Is it a way of preventing 'sleeper accounts'? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak specifically to the case you refer to (no details) but as "confusing" by itself is not grounds for an immediate block, it sounds like a questionable block regardless of the account's age.  Speaking more generally, there is indeed a school of thought that basically says "A violation is a violation, old account or otherwise, and should be blocked just in case they return."  Personally I consider it a waste of time to research, report and subsequently block an account that is not likely to return, but if there are editors who wish to spend their time doing just that, they are welcome to do so.  Different editors will have different opinion; mine is that blocking stale accounts is of no value.  Shereth 14:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100% with the above statement. Nothing is accomplished by blocking obviously inactive accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, nothing is accomplished by digging up a rule from the distant past that usernames that confuse someone should be blocked. Did someone actually do that? rspεεr (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  blocking inactive accounts? 

message: Please see the last 3 paragraphs of User:Dank/Review; I'm a bit confused.  Daniel seems to be saying that I can pick a username for myself that matches a website or business, so long as I'm not connected to that website or business.  But I can't call myself User:Apple Computer, right? - Dank (push to talk) 05:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that if a user name includes the "www" and the ".com" it is an inappropriate username, period.  At WP:ACC we do a review (google search) of the requested username, and if it matches a website it's often rejected... however not if it is a purely coincidental match.  With almost every domain name being registered in some shape or form even a random looking username like Abec2 probably matches a website within some TLD, however it doesn't mean that the username should be blocked immediately.   7  05:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would pretty much have to agree with the above.  Anything that is explicitly a website name - user of the www.whatever.xx format - should probably be blocked up front.  Any other interpretation overreaching.  I would not, after all, deign to block Dan simply because www.dank.org exists - unless he started out editing German American National Congress :)  I guess the point I would make is that if someone is going to be blocked for using a website name as a username, it had best be explicit and not just coincidental.  Shereth 14:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in the past we used to do things this way, but now if the editor is editing something with no connection to the website, we just let it go. Some people have personal websites that aren't about selling anything, and they like to have a  sort of unified username online. Most people with such usernames rarely edit for long, anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usernames that match a website 

message: I'm unclear on the whole situation with the holding pen. How long do we let these sit? There's one I sent there 12 days ago with "wait till the user edits." They still haven't, and probably never will. Is there a set time to remove names from the pen, or do they go to an archive somewhere, or what? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note that the pen is to be checked occassionally to see if the name is already blocked, or possibly if further action should be taken, particularly on one's labelled as 'wait' or 'discussing'. For those labelled 'discussing' -- if the user has failed to respond and they're still editing, then procedure says to consider taking action or take it to WP:RFC/N for community consensus. Generally names should be removed after a week or so regardless. All this info is in the header of the holding pen page actually, so let's remember to maintain that page and not forget about it once a name is placed there. And no, there's no archive - just remove them. Cheers. Nja247 08:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  holding pen 

message: I noticed this edit. If you want AIV Helperbot to work on this page just let me know and I will make the needed change. Chillum 02:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIV Helperbot 

message: I've added a link in to the bot-report page so that it's easier to access from the main page if someone wants to add a comment to a bot report. If I've done something wrong or I'm just not making any sense (a common occurence), tell me. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. For me, that is unnecessary, because I see "[edit]" section headers on every sub-section of every page anyway.  But I do believe that there are some editors that don't have that option because they use a different skin or have some checkbox different in their Preferences.  -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 17:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh... right. *is embarrassed* I never really notice those... They're there, but I always scroll up to the edit bar at the top. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot Reports 

message: Please don't reject reports of company or group names. If they are clearly the name of the company then they are indeed a clear violation of the username policy which says in no uncertain words "Explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted."
If one does not wish to enforce this part of the policy then there is no requirement to do so, but please do not indicate to users that they should not be reporting them here. This is not in response to any one action but a long term trend I have seen around here. Chillum 19:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a ridiculous part of policy that would lead to many editors needing to go through discussions about name changing. (Chillum is, for example, an italian glass product manufacturer, and a US sheet metal company.  Willing to change your name to something that doesn't violate this policy?) 82.33.118.5 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This was re-added to the policy(after being away for a while) after a RFC on username issues showed that the community wanted it that way. I am sorry you find it ridiculous, but it does enjoy consensus. Chillum 22:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

text: And thejadefalcon is a fictional faction in the MechWarrior universe. It's allowed because it's not blatant. If I had "Kotaku" or "GamesRadar" as my username though, that would be a different matter. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jadefalcon is a security company.JadeFalconIt.  The point about blatant is important, and is something that many reporting editors miss.  NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that if a name does not appear to be that of a company(ie User:Higher standards which may perhaps be a window washing company is not going to be disruptive or promotional on its own), but still is, that is not really a problem that needs prevention. Chillum 22:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  So, if the user is editing pages that are similar to their username, and their username is similar to a product/company etc then the user probably needs some help, and maybe a block.  (but a block for spamming, or a watching for COI.) And if the user name exactly matches a website or product or company they probably should consider changing it.  NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds about right. And my name came from the above Clan, though I commend the security group on having an awesome name. :P --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company names 

message: Not sure of the best place to address this issue but I noticed that a significant number of reports being made to UAA are immediately preceded by a welcome message left on the offending user's talkpage.  This usually seems to be done with one of the editing-assistance scripts like Friendly or Twinkle.  At best the notion of leaving a friendly "Welcome to Wikipedia" message immediately prior to reporting someone at UAA is ironic; at worst, it's sending schizophrenic signals about how things are run at Wikipedia.  Perhaps this ought to be addressed at the talk pages of the projects responsible for these kinds of userscripts, but I am of the opinion that something should be done to reduce (or preferably eliminate) this kind of automated "Welcome and report" behavior. Shereth 14:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Twinkle does not leave a welcome message when issuing a UAA report. However, Twinkle does automatically generate a welcome message along with speedy deletion notifications, so promotional users creating spam pages would get a welcome that way. Other than that, I think it's just well-meaning users issuing welcomes without realizing that there's a problem with the name, which subsequently gets reported by someone else. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually no, because the problem is specifically welcome messages left by the same user reporting them that has got me a bit concerned.  I see it very commonly, so it's not the sort of thing that seems worth educating users on individually.  You are right that a lot of them come as a result of the automatically generated user message that comes with speedy deletion notifications; perhaps some thought should be given to the value of automatically generating user welcome messages in tandem with these kinds of warnings.  Shereth 19:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Question - is this default behavior in Twinkle (the automated welcome message when leaving CSD notifications) or is it something that users have to enable?  I don't want to go hounding the TW folks about it if it's something that the users themselves are enabling. Shereth 19:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's default Twinkle behaviour or it's an opt-out choice, rather than opt-in. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And note that Twinkle comes in two flavors: a customizable "import .js" script, and a gadget which is not customizable.  I suspect that many Twinkle users, perhaps the majority, are using the uncustomizable kind. -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 17:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I'd forgotten that. I use the gadget. It's simpler. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both versions are customizable, these days, but of course most people who just tick the box in the gadgets won't know about the customization features since there is no GUI for it. Amalthea 23:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

text: It actually is a built-in feature of the speedy deletion notification templates showing  if the user talk page doesn't yet exist (with some tweaks, i.e. not thanking for contributions if a G3 Vandalism or G10 Attack SD notice is placed). It's been doing that for about one year, and Twinkle users can opt out of this behavior just as Mandarax has said above.Personally, I think it's preferrable to leave too many welcome messages rather than too few. It's genuinely helpful with good faithed users who make the rookie mistakes to actively give them a few more pointers about what to do next and how to get help now that their first article is about to be deleted. A number of vandals or people looking to use Wikipedia for advertising might be reformed if we actively point them at what Wikipedia is actually about. And vandals, spammers, and others who aren't reformable won't, I think, be encouraged by getting a welcome message (if they are doing that a lot with throwaway accounts they'll notice it's automated anyway).Yes, the messages are certainly placed on user talk pages where it's fairly clear that that user won't ever be a productive editor, but as long as it isn't counterproductive to place the message, and I don't think how it is if it's always delivered with a "your article is about to be deleted, and here's why" message, I very much prefer to keep them activated by default.I don't quite know where the best place is to discuss the value or harm of the messages, it's probably rather WT:CSD than WT:TW since it's really a template feature which is used by Twinkle-assisted, manual, and also Huggle-assisted placement of the notices (Template:Huggle/db-notice), so if I haven't convinced you, we should probably move this over there.Cheers, Amalthea, not watching since this is clogging up my watchlist, 23:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome messages 

message: Why was this user given a username block, and not some other more appropriate block?  Some admin has told this user that the username is the only reason the user was blocked.  The username is not a problem.  (really, what's it promoting?) But the behaviour - which was already being addressed - is.  82.33.118.5 (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what it was promoting, but the "tv" makes me think of an obscure television website or something. Regardless, they made an article with the same name which was speedily deleted. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 21:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no User:Mralfrdotv registered, are you sure you have the name right? Chillum 22:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This guy. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So, we have a user making pages about themselves.  The pages are deleted, the user is warned.  The user faces blocking for that problematic behaviour. So fat this is okay.  But now the user is blocked for their username.  They're given a block that says, clearly, "Your name is the only problem".  Their name is not the only problem.  In fact, their name probably wasn't a problem at all.  But now they've been told they can re-register and carry on, so long as they use a new name.  The old warning history is lost.  The COI is hidden.  Does anyone else agree that the username block was a bad way to make a block in this case? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good block, would have done the same thing myself. Soft blocking of users who create an article promoting something that has the same name as their username is pretty much standard operating procedure. They can file for a change of username or simply register a new account at any time. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure they need to be blocked - I'll m ake it clear that even i think they need to be blocked.  but would you have given them a username block?  A block that says "Your behaviour is fine, just change the username?".  Because, really, it's their behaviour that's the problem. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  I'd take it up with the blocking admin and ask why. Could be there were reasons for it. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really a case-by-case basis type of thing, although the longer I do it the more I find myself inclined to go with the hard block and leave  as it makes both problems clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mralfredotv 

message: * 
I just welcomed this user whose sole edits are to Puppet Master: Axis of Evil and who as far as I can tell is editing in good faith, but I don't know, I'm just not sure about the name?  I mean we may have editors whose family and friends were murdered and could find such a name offensive, no?  Anyway, just thought I'd ask for thoughts here before filing an official report and if the name is harmless, that's fine too.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The username is not profane, offensive nor an attack, and IMO not a blatant violation. If you are concerned then file an WP:RFC/N Triplestop x3 23:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am not personally offended (barring the name is serious!) and just wanted to see what someone else thought.  Take care!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me there's a large gulf between the names that might theoretically offend someone else, and those that actually cause offense. The username policy should only apply to the second kind, because the first kind never turns out to be a real problem, in my experience. rspεεr (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I got severely emotionally hurt and offended (details are in question two of my editor review by someone who claimed they'd "sooner join a band of rapists than become a registered Wikipedia editor" and other comments of the ilk whereas another person would just think that they were being a twat and think nothing else of it. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 14:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whereas I get more offended (by far) by the use of "being a twat" as an insult. YMMV, as they say. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 20:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (points to article) "As a derogatory insult, a pejorative meaning a fool, synonymous with the word twit - 'You are a real twat and a half' (often used in the UK)" I don't use it in the other meaning. Also, YMMV? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your Mileage May Vary. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 20:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thank you. And I'm sorry if I offended you (meant to put this in the last comment). --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:PsychoKillerOnTheRun]] 

message: Can I get some feedback on this name please?  I don't feel that this is an appropriate use of the name of one of the greatest wrestlers of all time, but am unsure on how to proceed.  Technically, it's not a violation, yet at the same time some people might object to the use of it.  ArcAngel (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If he was impersonating a living person, that would be one thing, but as you say there does not seem to be an actual policy violation. Your remaining option is to discuss the matter with them, either in your own words or using . Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:%27%27Latino_Heat%27%27_]] 

message: I think it takes more than just the current policies to deter people from making user accounts that obviously sound like business, organization or group names. Shouldn't the details on the sign-up page be updated? ...mechamind90... 23:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The more we put there the less they'll read. Intelligentsium 00:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My experience has been that most spammers are rather dense and/or think that Wikipedia is so big that they can slip in un-noticed. No amount of written words is likely to deter them the way deleting their contributions and hardblocking their account does. The more spammers I deal with, the more harsh my attitude towards them has become. You know, we shouldn't have to tell vandals that replacing an encyclopedic article with the word "poop" is wrong, they already know that it is, and we shouldn't have to tell spammers that advertisements do not belong in an encyclopedia for the same reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  Personally I believe that most spammers (and probably a significant portion of "regular" users) sign up without actually reading the username policy or the details on the signup page.  How many of us are guilty of signing up for some web service, scrolling to the bottom of the TOS and clicking the button that says you read it when you actually didn't?  I know I'm guilty of it. Shereth 14:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one didn't read the username policy when signing up...I actually didn't do that until a few months ago, and I have been on Wikipedia since 2007. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 00:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I only read it when I started sending reports here. I already knew that my name wasn't an issue since I use it everywhere. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Way back when I got an account, the username policy actually read: "The best username is typically either your real name, or a longstanding internet pen name."  I guess this was more of the open source roots of Wikipedia... it is common to use your real name for open source work.  Gigs (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Doesn't it discourage real names now? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 10:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It does. Gigs (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 18:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you serious? 

message: Didn't we come to the conclusion a while ago that usernames that are company names are not to be blocked on sight? --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The last RFC on the topic concluded that company names are indeed a blockable violation.  Administrators do have some discretion as to whether to block someone immediately, or give them an opportunity to request a namechange if they are productive editors, but in general yes they are blocked. Shereth 17:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Link for the RFC? --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Blatant Promotion RfC. Shereth 17:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also the username policy WP:USERNAME which says: "Explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted". This was added in response to the RFC and reflects consensus on the matter. While no admin is required to block company names, they should not be rejected reports of them. A soft block is the way to go if their is no abusive action, you could also request the user change their name if they are communicative. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company names 

message: * It is possible for the substring "hitler" to occur as a false positive :: some Turkish nouns end in "-hit", and adding the Turkish plural suffix "-ler" produces the substring. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *possible, but unlikely. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler 

message: I removed a load of stale names, ie accounts that have never edited (and were registered many months or years ago), or accounts that had edited, but not in months/years. I got a ping on my talk page by the user who had left the reports. Essentially, to me, if it was registered months/years ago and hasn't edited or hasn't done so recently, then it's not something for immediate concern to admins, which UAA is for. I mentioned the way in which those names should be handled if the user is truly concerned in my reply. Do consider his comments and my reply and maybe comment on if the guidelines are clear enough. See ya next week, NJA  (t/c) 18:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are exactly correct in how you handled this. Stale accounts should not be reported here. I've mentioned this to Calton (and others) before, as well. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. Last time I spoke with Calton about their UAA reports, I got this response, thus I wanted to ensure my view on stale names had consensus. Cheers, NJA  (t/c) 18:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It does. rspεεr (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I will admit, however, that I sometimes don't immediately notice stale dates on specific actions if there are only a couple and they are obviously spammy (the most common reason editors are reported here). I've caught myself a couple times (recently, with editors reported by Calton, in fact) when the edits were from October or early November. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just my 2 cents, but I agree that stale accounts are not actionable at this board. TNXMan 19:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just piling on to say reporting or blocking stale accounts is pointless, although I have also fallen into the same trap as Nihonjoe. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reports of stale names 

message: Suddenly there's a huge user-reported backlog, and many of these names aren't the kind that can be dealt with quickly. Yes, some of the recent reports have had a clear reason to block, but others have been clearly not blockable when you actually look at their contributions. And some reports are in that lovely gray area where their username kinda sorta promotes something, and some are attempts to use the "speedy deletion of users" process that does not in fact exist. I've dealt with some of them, but now I'm going to go to sleep.
This spike in UAA reports does not seem to correspond to our new users' names suddenly being significantly worse than average. I think a bunch of TWINKLE users just decided "report them all and let admins sort it out". "Possible violation" is not the most confidence-inspiring block reason, for example. I would appreciate if these users looked into the situations themselves and only reported users that clearly need to be username-blocked.
Admins: please don't block users indiscriminately just to make the backlog go away -- be as careful about blocking as you usually would. Everyone: you can help by finding the names that are least essential to be blocked, removing the report, and trying something like talking to the user instead. rspεεr (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not by me, though.  ArcAngel (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daunting backlog 

message: This page's instructions read: "Consider taking your request to RFCN, which is a forum for discussing possible violations after the user has already been notified and had a chance to discuss."
WP:RFCN's instructions read: "The user in question should first be notified and allowed time to discuss on their talk page about the concern regarding their username before adding the report here. Do not post the issue here unless they have refused to change their username or have continued to edit without reply." (emphasis in original)
These get the same basic message across, but the RFCN instructions specify that one should wait for them to continue to edit before adding a report. Without this, one is left to make their own interpretations of "a chance to discuss" or "time to discuss". For consistency's sake, I propose we change "had a chance to discuss." to something to the effect of "has continued to edit without addressing the issue." -kotra (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Sure. rspεεr (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, changed. -kotra (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allowing for discussion before sending to RFCN 

message: Shouldn't Special:UserLogin/signup gave more advice? There is nothing there to indicate that company and group account names are unacceptable: if there were, it would reduce the workload here at UAA. Of course, giving no warning makes it easier to catch spammers: but it seems unkind to let them walk all unawares into the trap. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested doing so previously but was shot down for the very reason you mention with regards to the ease of catching spammers.  I dislike using the username policy as an ensnaring device but consensus was not in my favor. Shereth 21:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy/Archive_14#How_are_new_users_made_aware_of_this_policy.3F for a previous discussion touching on this subject. Shereth 22:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Username advice on signing up 

message: Would a user called Sleazebaggano be blocked? Because while "sleazebag" can be considered offensive, it is also the name of a little known character in Star Wars (who was seen for a short section in Episode II, but never named onscreen). Just curious. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 18:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say no.     7  23:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: This is kind of in the same thread as the previous two sections.  A recent response when User:Ttonyb1 posted a name that was very close to being softerblock-able was the standard WP:COIN template, and the response (different admin, different patroller) to the report of User:Lovedeepcybercafe was "See WP:UAA/I to know when to report names here." (a non-templated response ... which is better, but still implies that the person reporting has no idea what they're doing).  In fairness, a templated answer is sometimes exactly what you want ... it implies a certain impersonality, "I'm not aiming this at you directly, we just have a certain number of canned answers, and here's the answer I think is best".  So I'm not against templated answers in general, but when the report is arguably close to the right idea, I think it would be helpful to discuss why it's "close but no cigar" (do people still say that, or am I dating myself?) ... that gets across the right idea, that non-admins are very much a part of the process of figuring out how to handle the border cases, and their insights are welcome.  If we discuss things, we might even find out that we're wrong from time to time ... for instance, the call on User:Lovedeepcybercafe was wrong.  A quick Google search (on "Lovedeep cybercafe") showed that this is indeed someone who spams their url around the internet advertising their services, as they did here in WP:Sandbox (which, from a promotional point of view, is worse than doing it in their own userspace), so this definitely deserved a quick block. - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, non-admins are part of the process, and to continue to discourage our UAA volunteers to take minor concerns into their own hands is tragic. That's what policy tells them to do, and as admins we should encourage this. As for the name, whilst it may technically breach ORGNAME, their only edit was in the sandbox, and therefore this was not a serious concern in my opinion. A simple discussion on their talk page (likely with the most relevant  template), which would have explained the issues should have sufficed. Had they actually then went on to spam wikipedia (or even their userspace), that's when it becomes more of a real concern, and since they were warned, then we would know they're acting in bad faith or just don't care about policy. Anyhow, while I agree the name was technically a vio, it wasn't something to get too excited over, and we should actively encourage UAA volunteers to follow policy and AGF and discuss first for minor concerns. Again, had they went on to actually spam (not in a sandbox), that's when the report is either escalated to UAA or even RFCN (as they would have been warned already). NJA  (t/c) 16:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point ... sandbox edits will disappear quickly, and the sandbox is there for experimenting ... it's a bad idea to bonk people on the head for experimenting.  But I still take the opposite position in this case ... IMV, we should commend the patroller for reporting this one, and softerblock it immediately (as I have).  You know this NJA, but there's a legal problem with usernames that represent websites or companies rather than individuals (even anonymous individuals), namely, that creates contributions that no one has the copyright on ... not the WMF because they don't own the content here, and not any individual because we can't attribute an edit by a company or website to any one individual.  We've got clear direction from the WMF that edits like these are not acceptable ... we can be nice about blocking, but we still have to block.  The other point I want to make is along the lines of the Parable of the Prodigal Son ... sure, we should welcome the users who are arguably behaving bad with open arms ... it doesn't cost us anything to be nice, and if they ever cross a line, we can always block them.  But when we don't extend the same AGF to the guy who's spent the last year patrolling for infractions that we extend to any old boob who happens to stumble in and deposit their trash ... I don't want to single out any particular patroller or admin, obviously there's no black and white here, I'll just say that there are patrollers who basically know what they're doing, who do their homework, including Google searches for spam urls when needed, and who get met with a templated response that implies that they seem to have wandered into the wrong place by accident.  I honestly don't know if it pisses any of them off, but sometimes it pisses me off. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not discussing ORGNAME generally, I'm discussing this specific name. An edit in a sandbox will not show on google, and again whilst it's a technical vio, I still contend it was a minor concern. If WMF wants to send me a memo on it, then they know how to get a hold of me. Anyhow, let's be clear that I'm not arguing the block, as it's over and done with. What I'm concerned about is this feeling that reminding volunteers of policy is somehow wrong. I don't believe it's contrary to AGF, or that it's even rude to remind people on how the policy tells us to deal with inappropriate usernames. If it "pisses you off", then honestly I think that's a personal issue and I see no place or reason for it. I try to be courteous to all involved, ie the volunteer and the reported name. I will continue to, and I urge all admins to actively encourage UAA volunteers to follow policy by assuming good faith and discussing first for minor concerns. NJA  (t/c) 17:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the emotional language comes across as escalation, I apologize for that; it's my style to occasionally say that something on-wiki makes me sad or happy or angry, if I've been feeling that way for a while and we don't seem to be getting resolution.  Anyway: I didn't mean that as an "argumentum ad Jimbonem" or whatever they call it ... yes, that's a Foundation position, but the reason I'm picking this username issue to talk about is, IMO, we've had a strong consensus on it for a long time.  I guess I can distill this down to two specific recommendations: if someone reports a username and it's reasonable to believe that the username might be claimed by a business or website and not claimed by an individual as a pseudonym, then instead of templating the patroller, I suggest that we ask them why, i.e. on what evidence, they believe that's the case; they might have evidence we haven't seen, or they might have an opinion on how to sort out the borderline cases that we haven't thought of yet.  And when we know for sure that the username is similar to that of a business or website, but we don't feel that it's quite similar enough to merit a block, I'd recommend we give the patroller a link to some place where we discuss this issue, because the judgment calls are tough, and ask them to look at the examples provided and get back with us and make their case if they still think the name is close enough to merit a block, after they've read the examples. - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I see your point about AGF ... it means different things to different people, which makes it a "loaded" term and one that I think I won't use any more. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Lovedeepcybercafe]] 

message: I just went to block a REALLY inappropriate username and was greeted with this message after I hit the "Block" button: "The user you are trying to block has already been blocked and hidden. Since you do not have the hideuser right, you cannot see or edit the user's block." I've never seen this before, and know that "hideuser" isn't one of the bits in User rights management. Is this some sort of feature of the oversight bit? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently this also prevents the HBC AIV helperbots from automatically removing a report as the block is hidden from view. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was the one you just removed from UAA, I'm pretty certain they got oversighted. I've encountered this user before (it's a network of similarly named sockpuppets) and they've been oversighted both times they posted on J.delanoy's talk page. As you can see, they were oversighted again. Once you've checked it out, Ioeth, would you mind e-mailing Oversight to deal with Cluebot's edit summary? The reverts have been oversighted previously as well. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 15:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this page may cover the hidden username. TNXMan 15:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  hideuser 

message: I can understand why WP:UP doesn't ban non-Latin-script usernames for real people (since some people might want to use their real names and be offended by having to spell them in an orthography that is often insufficient to actually more than vaguely approximate the real thing), but I'm having a really hard time thinking of any possible justification for a bot account being named タチコマ robot on English Wikipedia. It's meaningless to any editor who doesn't know Japanese or whatever that is, and bots don't have feelings. I don't really spend any time at all in username policy discussions, so I'll leave this to the regulars. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not seeing a reason for it is one thing, but if you could explain what the harm is in having this name, that would be helpful. No real information is conveyed by most bot names, I don't see how this is anymore confusing that "EdwardsBot" or "SoxBot." Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that information is being conveyed by most bot names (either the creator of the bot or something about its purpose).  The harm, however, is in wasted editor time; hardly anyone can actually just type those characters here, so an editor needing to refer to this bot will have to go find it again (somehow - they can't search for it!) and copy the name, then come back to where ever they were and paste it in. No one has to do that for "SoxBot" or "EdwardsBot" unless they can't remember a simple name. Essentially, the rule against having usernames that are intentionally obfuscatory and confusing clearly applies here (not just because meaning is obscured, but because the name itself is impenetrable and unmemorizable and unsearchable and untypeable by everyone but speakers of whatever language that is. Even if people using their own real names in their own scripts might have a plausible exception, that clearly wouldn't apply to bots. Naming a bot like this is just silly and a frustration to others. It would actually be preferable to have a bot named "asdfsdv9i023oim_f09s8rf98uw3orijsv[p0sa98r-0wrx-0wa87,-98seug98nxdff0usdf-0sa8f0saufpsd09iusdiiuBot", since at least these characters exist on the keyboards of 99.99% of en.wiki users and "asdf" is an easily typed and searchable string for most users, and a memorable one, because of what keys it on a QUWERTY keyboard).SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  If people see a bot doing something they don't like, we want them to report it; it will be a strong disincentive to report it if they can't even approximate the name. - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I believe that's a reference to either Ghost in the Shell or Appleseed or Dominion Tank Police. It's been a while since I've read those series, so I forget which one...ah! Looks like GitS: Tachikoma. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I should note that the username policy applies equally to robots, so I see nothing wrong with this bot account name. I've also created a doppleganger account (User:Tachikoma robot) which redirects to the User:タチコマ robot account. So, there are no issues at all with this one. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Latin script for bots? 

message: Not sure if to post here, or there, but I figure most people interested watch both pages and this is the page for enforcement, thus likely more relevant. As you may know, blocks using the two promo templates  and  place the user's talk page in the category :Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names for tracking. I feel the same would be advantageous for other username policy blocks and created :Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy, with the aim of adding it to the current standard block templates (except the two templates for promo names noted already). Anyone particularly opposed to this? 
Also, it may be possible to go through the names already noted at the various 'Z' templates and add them to the category for tracking of names by use of the standardised templates from approx August 2009. NJA  (t/c) 14:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, and it would also allow a bot to more easily go through them and do anything necessary (bots are used to cleaning up several related categories of tagged user pages). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly. Okay, so now the use of the standard templates will add them to that CAT. I will look into pulling names listed in the various related Z categories over to the new CAT. The CAT will only be good from August 2009, but it's better than nothing and of course all future blocks will now be tracked better (as the Z cats made it difficult). Cheers, NJA  (t/c) 12:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Okay, so note now that username blocks are either categorised in :Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for promotional user names or :Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy only. Thanks, NJA  (t/c) 08:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category for tracking 

message: Heya, I need some help please. As shown on their talk page, I've been trying to indicate to the user for three days now that some of their reports to WP:UAA do not meet the criteria, or are otherwise not username policy issues. I understand making some reports in error happens, but to continue to do so after at least two ignored posts is troubling. 
Further, it seems they're warning users such as this & this, that in no way could be seen as a policy concern. Thoughts? I do not want them to upset or scare off users with continued warnings and reports to noticeboards where there is truly no real issue with their name. I'm trying to assume good faith, which is why I've been persistent and pleasant on their talk page, however I'm starting to wonder why they're ignoring these concerns. Assistance, advice, etc would be lovely. NJA  (t/c) 11:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Goodvac]] and their UAA reports 

message: There are some users who post at AIV or UAA on the top of a list of users, and some who post on the bottom. There should be a rule. mechamind90 05:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front or back of line 

message: Just to make people aware, the AIV helper bot has been editing logged out for some reason. If we see an IP removing notices here, it may be the UAA bot doing the same thing. FYI. SGGH ping! 14:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Might want to make a note at WP:AN/I about it. But then again, they've probably already noticed it. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 14:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 14:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Aww poor guy. SGGH ping! 18:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: User:JamesR runs the current one. SGGH ping! 18:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are be talking about two different things actually, HBC NameWatcherBot scans new usernames and reports them if inappropriate, and is not running, HBC AIV helperbot removes blocked users from the list automatically and is still running, but we haven't had any bot reported names in five days. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logged out bot 

message: There are currently 2 reports to UAA that I would normally handle with a quick .  I have checked to make sure that there's no actual conversation going on that indicates that the new user is reading anything we've written.  My question is: should I block, even though another editor has left a message for the user? - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Avicennasis @ 12:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Avicennasis @ 12:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say yes, but only because they have made promotional edits.  Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 15:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be more than 2. Avicennasis has moved reports which they marked as UAA|d to the Holding Pen. Isn't that something which only administrators should be doing? 75.5.9.223 (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was that names tagged for discussion that had been sitting for a while with no change in status were moved to the holding pen. If this is something only admins should be doing, then I apoligize for my mistake! (I was only trying to be be bold in helping out.) I will not move any more names to the holding pen until it is clarified whether or not it should be a admin-only task. Also, as I stated on my talk page, if my "assistance" at WP:UAA is causing more harm/confusion than actual help, I won't be offended if asked to stop. :) Avicennasis @ 21:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just checking 

message: What happened to ? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall seeing this on the WP:UAA page. It's not there currently, nor was it in Feb 2010, Nov 09, Sept 09, or July 09. (I didn't go back any futher.) Maybe I am misunderstanding the question? Avicennasis @ 01:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As Avicennasis stated, it wasn't there before. I have added it, though, as it's a useful link to the other noticeboards. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Was this removed? It seems to not be there now for me at least, and I have cleared my cache and purged the page... Avicennasis @ 09:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I don't see it either. Does anyone know who removed it? TNXMan 11:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd, I placed it there. Let's see...here is where I added it, then NJA removed it without discussion four days later. I've readded it to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Header. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question 

message: Please see this BRfA for a Helperbot replacement. Input is welcome, the bot will be doing a seven day trial, so please let X! or the BRfA know about any errors. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot 23]] 

message: Heya, I was hoping to remind fellow admins who do a lot of UAA watching and/or username blocking to please try to remove the category Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over from userpages they've blocked. That way that category remains current with a listing of only names that have an active concern (ie they're not blocked). I just went through and removed about 70 names from the last ten days, thus on average we have ten a day. Over a month that'd become hundreds, so please do spend the extra few seconds to remove that category from their userpage when blocking. Thanks, NJA  (t/c) 09:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave a request for a bot task for this; I don't usually look at the talk page of the blockee.  When I block for straightforward cases, usually all I look at is their list of contributions; if I do see an edit that makes a clear connection between their username and a business, organization or website, and I don't see that they have responded to any concerns anyone might have expressed (and they usually don't), then I . (The beauty of this system is that the ones who don't read the softerblock message because they don't care only notice that they've been blocked, and they generally don't create a page promoting the same entity even under a different username, while the ones who do read the message either send me an email or take a few moments to create a new account ... so the system we've got going gets most of these people to self-select according to their intention.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, same here, but if you're leaving a block notice (whether manually or with a script) you end up seeing their talk page. If you notice one of the two templates that invoke that category then a few seconds to remove the category won't be the end of the world (I do it). That is until we can sort out a bot. Thanks for making that request for us. NJA  (t/c) 16:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I may be able to write a bot to do this, I'll take a look into it. I think this would be especially suitable for a bot since the edits can be marked as +m +b, and that way the "New Messages" bar won't be triggered. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

text:  WP:Bots/Requests for approval/KingpinBot 3 - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[CAT:UAA]] admin reminder 

message: Hi, I suggest that we block creating usernames that are already names of well-known living person, and by that we reduce time and effort needed at the WP:UAA , what do you think ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhero88 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 19 March 2010
:So how many names would be in this category?  Who is going to create the list? Who is going to decide which people are "well-known  living person"s?  –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also the issue of real names coinciding with that of a "well known living person", especially if a "well known living person" has a common or not-unlikely name. For example, what if a user's username were "Gordon Brown"? How do we know if this is someone genuinely trying to impersonate the Prime Minister, or someone halfway across the globe with a fairly common name who has no idea who James Gordon Brown is? Intelligentsium 22:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usernames of well-known living person 

message: Maybe I missed the discussion, but has the bot that removes blocked usernames conked out? TNXMan 17:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what's going on there, just tracked down the bot's owner and asked , but it looks like he's not around that often, it may be a few days before this is sorted out. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bot seems to be back in action. TNXMan 21:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And it seems that I'm the one that broke it! I'll just slowly back away now... TNXMan 21:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late! I smell blood in the water! I'm off to ANI to demand you be desysopped and banned and maybe beaten up a bit. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah. I like the beaten up a bit part. 100 lashes with a wet noodle is in order. -- Alexf(talk) 01:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh noes! You all saw nothing! Nothing, you understand! TNXMan 11:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot not operating? 

message: What happened to the AIV helperbots clearing blocked users? NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 21:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing that the problem is related to the recent change in the login procedure which bots use. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone know how long until it'll be fixed, or is that even possible to know attm? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The last post on JamesR's talk page is the latest info I have (not to say there aren't more recent developments). TNXMan 00:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIV Helperbots 

message: Hi. I've opened a conversation about policy wording on company names at the username policy talk page, here, and would welcome feedback there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked this at the above-linked discussion, but having received no reply there I shall try again here. Any chance someone can enlighten me as to what actually should be reported here? I've come across a few but the instructions indicate that it does not need to be blocked unless there is "evidence that an account was created in bad faith" which seems to be at odds with the Username policy. Until now (and following the instructions) I've just been dropping a  on their pages and leaving them to their merry ways, since evidence of bad faith seems like a pretty high bar to me. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, so far all responders at that discussion agree that promotional usernames are routinely blocked. I was rather hoping for more feedback than I've received. :) I guess I'll have to run an RfC on this one or something. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, reading those instructions more closely, they do seem to blatantly contradict policy. That needs to be dealt with. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional username violations, policy/practice divide 

message: Should a link to List of ethnic slurs be included somewhere in the notice on the reporting page? Doing so would allow editors to check for usernames that may be racially offensive. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea; per the recent ANI thread, I had no idea that "Paki" was a racial slur. But what about linking it somewhere from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Instructions instead of the board itself? That would leave more room to explain that the List may offer guidance, but is not to be taken as gospel. After all, being a Wikipedia article, it is subject to inaccuracy. And a lot of the terms on there would be completely innocuous without context marking them otherwise (nine times out of ten, I would hazard, somebody named "Jock" is an athlete, not mocking Scottish people). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist usernames 

message: I'm thinking about something kind of like the uw-softerblock, but with an explicit link to :WP:NOBLECAUSE and (perhaps) :WP:UPANDCOMING, to gently break it to the advocates of some noble cause or worthwhile initiative that they can't use us to raise funds and make themselves famous. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 15:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad idea. I concur. -- Alexf(talk) 16:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I knocked this up by copying uw-softerblock and adding a bit to it. Feel free to tweak it around. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now added to Twinkle's block notice menu. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we have some kind of [[:WP:NOBLECAUSE]]-block template created? 

message: Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#problem with the way username only blocks on promotional accounts are being handled. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion of problem with some username blocks 

message: I think some of us need to be more cognizant of the fact that the bot cannot establish context. All it does is look for patterns that might indicate a problem. Right now in the holding pen there are several bot reports that admins decided we should wait on, despite the fact that the name does not even come close to representing a real policy violation. I'm thinking in particular of reports based on the name containing a word like "cannibal" or "revenge." I suppose I could see some ways those words could be used to construct highly offensive usernames, and the bot is not subtle enough to separate those from the harmless ones so it just reports them all. That's why we have admins review the reports instead of granting the bot admin powers. An example that's holding there right now is "Teslas Revenge." There is no way, no day, that that name is a violation, so why was the report placed on hold instead of just being removed as an unactionable report?  Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. For some reason, I thought that the templates served a function for the bot (possibly I came across another bot that takes note of templates?). Anyway, I shall avoid in future. --Kateshortforbob talk 17:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot at RFPP looks for templates as a guide to perform actions, I believe. TNXMan 17:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you mention it, why can't the bot move things to the holding pen? It removes reports of blocked users, I would imagined it could be programmed to move anything with a "wait" or "discussing with user" tag to the holding pen after an hour or so has passed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  the bot is not a person, it doesn't know any better 

message: I notice that when the HTTP request fails to receive a response code, it causes the text to assume the second  is "Toggle Italic + apostrophe", and the ' is "Apostrophe + toggle Italic and Bold". Perhaps when it's blank it could say none. mechamind90 20:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  6 apostrophes 

message: OK, I'm probably being stupid, but I could have sworn we had a policy on impersonation? Could someone steer me towards it, if it does in fact exist...?
While I'm here, this is apropos of this post, this user: , and this real-life politician: Alex Salmond. My first thought is to have a word with the user concerned (Alexsalmond, obviously, not the editor who drew this to my attention!) but I wanted to make sure I could at least pretend I know what I'm talking about. Which I can't right now, because I is stupid.
Thanks! TFOWR 17:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:REALNAME discusses real names. Impersonation of Wikipedia users - if bad-faith - falls under general disruption in the username and blocking policies, probably best summed up by . It's worth noting that sometimes some details just get copyedited out of policy, whilst remaining in effect. That's probably happened a bit here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, it looks like the first thing to do is check with Alexsalmond if they are who they appear to be. If not I'll take it from there. Thanks again, TFOWR 20:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impersonation... 

message: I was surprised to see User:Atzmon gillie get through as this name was highly likely to be associated with the "runtshit vandal", one of the best known cases of long-term vandalism. User now blocked indefinitely. Is there not a bot that could have been set to catch it? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major vandal slipping through 

message: Regulars here will have noted that I tend to be merciless with spammers, but tolerant of just about everything else short of outright racial slurs or obscenities. I am becoming very concerned that users are being chased off by largely imaginary problems with their usernames that they are asked to discuss. This can be very off putting to a new user, when clearing out the holding pen I have noted that the majority of users who are the subject of one of these discussions simply stop editing and are never heard from again. Today's example  is just the latest of several such cases. I find it odd that some admins are willing to AGF to almost absurd extremes in some cases but will want to discuss a "violation" that is not at all apparent and based wholly on speculation. Thoughts anyone? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree with you in some ways -- I'm not an admin but I do a lot of new pages patrol and end up tagging a lot of spam that way.  I suspect we feel the same way about people who use Wikipedia for promotional purposes.  It seems like your issue today was over whether a name was naughty or not, but for a while now I've felt it was too harsh to have a brightline rule saying you can be indeffed for having a username that's the same as the name of a business, and yet we hand out 48hour blocks to repeat vandals.  There's no notion that these people could possibly become useful contributors and I think that's a little short-sighted.  — e. ripley\talk 21:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many users being scared off by discussion of non-existent violations 

message: I'm ready to begin when anyone else is; just start adding  with your comments or one of the  icons (see :Template:UAA for options) after other people's reports at UAA, and my understanding is that we'll have a vote later on on who gets to keep using the clerk icons, maybe at the end of September. comments under other people's reports (and see below for discussion of what people are looking for).  I think clerks might want to avoid the messages that begin "This noticeboard is for blatant violations of the username policy" and just write out the second part of the message with a quick explanation, but that's just a guess, we'll see.  Hard to say, but my guess is the time spent in voting on clerks and communicating with clerks and making sure the clerks don't give contradictory messages to the people reporting usernames will mean that the community decides to only promote a few clerks, but we'll see about that, too. 
Clerks could do a lot of the stuff that admins do; do whatever you want to do, and we'll figure out what works as we go.  For instance, a user named Cafe Mystere was just reported who created a now-deleted promotional page called PrimaCafe.  You might:
*Do a Google search on the chance that those are the names of two related businesses, which would allow us to  the user.  I couldn't find it; maybe you can.
*PrimaCafe has already been tagged WP:G11 and deleted, but if it hadn't been tagged, a clerk might want to do that.
*The new-page-patroller who reported the name has made a bunch of reports to UAA that have been accepted, and some that weren't.  It's a judgment call when to explain the guidelines to patrollers; even if you know exactly what you're talking about, it has occasionally annoyed some patrollers to the point where they stopped patrolling and even left Wikipedia completely when lots of "helpful" people posted something on their talk page every time they arguably made a mistake.  (This is another reason not to have a big pile of clerks, all trying to give feedback to patrollers at once.) [Inserted: let's wait on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I still feel this is entirely unnecessary, and yes, I know you've said it's a test... but I feel there is no need to create more "user classes". Anyway, I'll help out when I can to help test this. Netalarmtalk 03:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Most noticeboards don't have clerks yet, so you're right, this hasn't been necessary.  What's happened recently that has got people worried is the story in today's WP:Signpost, particularly the table at WT:RFA#When did active admins register their accounts? ... that is, the number of active admins according to the year they started has gone from about 200 a year down to 30 for 2008 and 11 for 2009; that's not a drop, that's a plunge, and we have to figure out a way to start delegating before we lose another 200 or 400 active admins.  We also need more admins, and some have suggested that a few months of solid clerking will go down very well at RfA.  I'm totally with you that we don't want to create layers of bureaucracy ... if anyone sees that happening, if people feel like they can't talk to whoever they want about whatever they want to because clerks or admins are standing in the way, I'd like to hear about it.  - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a serious plunge, but I feel that it's because people seem to have too high a standard for admins these days. Not only do they have to be familiar with the vandalism policy, username policy, BLP policy etc, they have to create content and basically not make any mistakes. To be honest, everyone makes a mistake once in a while, yet potential admin candidates are often times opposed because of a simple mistake they have learned from. Anyway, being an admin requires that someone be well rounded in everything, which is hard... since we can't be good at (and aren't interested in) everything. Netalarmtalk 04:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinions are all over the place on how hard RfA actually is, but we're all agreed that it looks very scary and divisive more often than it should and that's a major problem.  If you can solve that problem, you should tackle quantum gravity and a cure for cancer next :) - Dank (push to talk) 05:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I'd rather not encourage or discourage any particular candidate ... not until the end of September when we maybe vote :)  But please, do jump in, you've done a lot of work at UAA and admins have accepted most of your reports so you clearly have a shot. - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An infobox at UAA might be helpful so that people know they don't have to ask permission to clerk, and that there's a "competition" of sorts going on ... I'll add it now, but anyone can feel free to revert if it's too distracting, or tweak it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I must say, without at all putting down anyone who may wish to help out, but does it really get busy enough here that we would need anyone else? It doesn't get as busy as AIV does and they are happy with admins, non-admins can already decline non-vios or pick out false-positives here, and at the very worst a line at WP:AN can be dropped to get another admin over here, and there is less imperative to resolve issues quickly here than there is at ANI or AIV. S.G.(GH) ping! 13:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerking 

message: I'm beginning to get the impression that "clerkship" here is primarily used to generate better admin candidates, which I do not believe should be the primary reason (if even a valid reason at all) for starting such a system here. If someone wants UAA experience before an RfA, he can always comment here as a regular user, thus having no need for a clerk system. The tasks currently outlined above for clerks can also be done by regular users, and should be done by regular users in the future, as this allows more input and gets rid of any unnecessary bureaucracy. IMO, if a clerking system is implemented in the future, it would make sense to limit what regular users may do so as to give clerks some extra leverage at UAA (for example, remove false positives, comment on non-blatant violations, discuss with users should be limited if clerks are implemented). That is why I don't feel there's a real need to implement such a system, as it creates unnecessary layers of users. Also, we don't have people clerking at AIV, WQA, or COIN because it's unnecessary. It's kinda the same here... Netalarmtalk 04:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this idea that clerkship is not really needed. I've been at WP:UAA on and off since March 2010, tagging discussions and whatnot as an non-admin, and the only remarks I've received from admins have been positive. While the final call is up to an admin, (as it should be,) anything preceding should be open to all editors, in my opinion. The only good reasons I see for clerkship would be if (1) WP:UAA is backlogged often, which it is not, or (2) there is a lot of work for each report, thus clerking users could help reduce the workload on admins. The processing of WP:UAA reports, however, does not seem labour intensive to me. Serveral non-admin users besides myself often help out here, and I haven't seen a negative response to it; nor do I see a need for another "level of trust" to WP:UAA. That's just my two cents, though. :) Avicennasis @ 07:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Having clerks shouldn't preclude non-clerks from the board, but instead it should be an endorsement that they have been doing this long enough to have demonstrated competence at it. ϢereSpielChequers 16:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I don't see what I'd be able to do as a UAA clerk that I can't do at UAA already.  I'm in and out of UAA as my time allows, and have been for quite some time now.  Most of my reports get accepted, some don't.  I think a clerkship would be more of a "this user has been doing this long enough that s/he can reasonably be expected to know what s/he is doing most of the time."  Adminship would be a nice goal and clerkship would certainly help towards that, but even after five years with an account on Wikipedia, I don't feel I have the policy knowledge required of admins, and I've certainly made a number of mistakes along the way.  I don't want to nominate myself to an RfA... and if someone else nominated me, I'd have a hard time accepting the nomination (though I would be flattered).  I've gotten Reviewer privileges as part of the reviewed edits trial, and I'm having a very hard time wrapping my head around how that works, since it usually hassn't worked in the way I've expected it to whenever I've tried.  Anyway... yes, I'd accept clerk privileges if UAA-patrolling admins feel I'm competent enough to have them, but I do not feel clerkship is strictly necessary.  Tckma (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: @WereSpielChquers: Someone can demonstrate their understanding of UAA by commenting here frequently. There's no need to create a new "clerk" position, as it creates unnecessary bureaucracy. We should all be able to comment and do things that we believe are in the best interest of WP, and there's no need to restrict such actions to a limited group of people. Netalarmtalk 22:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: @Netalarm, I wouldn't support a clerking system if it meant restricting non-clerks from commenting, but I don't believe anyone is suggesting that. ϢereSpielChequers 00:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Speaking of WP:Clerks, Netalarm has posted some excellent links on past "failed" clerk attempts at WT:Clerking. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hold on... 

message: — user was usernameblocked after his name was posted here.  User:Pornhistorian argues that the name isn't a violation.  User:Jpgordon agrees, and I'm inclined to agree as well.  Please review.  Exploding Boy (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the user name is certainly a conversation starter! I concur that it is not strongly offensive; however, it is still offensive. --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he's already been unblocked, so there you are.  Exploding Boy (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see that, having just finished reading his user talk page. Well, at least it's not strongly offensive, it could be worse! I can't wait to see some comments from some prepubescent kids on his user page. --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pornhistorian 

message: A thought: the holding pen is for things that don't require immediate attention.  Would it abuse the holding pen too much if we also move things there if, arguably, we could take immediate action, but it wouldn't hurt to slow down a little so we can make sure that everyone's rowing in the same direction, particularly the patroller who reported it?  Generally, reports disappear very fast from UAA, and I believe some of the patrollers aren't checking to see what was said and what was done.  Pointing them to the discussion and leaving it up for a day in the holding pen might help (or longer if it turns out there's significant disagreement, and sometimes there is). - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with that. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't see a problem either. Looks like a good idea, as long as the pen doesn't get too big and unmanageable. A few days stay is fine with me. -- Alexf(talk) 12:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holding pen 

message: So what exactly can and can't "ordinary" users do to help out with WP:UAA? --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 23:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally up to you.  You can watch edit filter 188 for likely username violations, you can keep an eye on new pages (see WP:NPP), or you can just hang out here and at the holding pen giving your opinion on cases that aren't handled immediately (usually because we'd like more input).  Cymru am byth. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All right. Thanks!  --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 15:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

text: As long as the user is sufficiently familiar with the username policy and UAA, I don't think this is a problem; the admin bit isn't required to comment with the notation templates or to remove non-vios, so an admin isn't required there. I had similar concerns when I used the AIV notation template previously, but was informed in IRC that it's fine (and indeed helpful) as long as it's used correctly, though it's less required in AIV, which usually has admins quickly acting on reports. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Blatant non-violations, like those often reported by the bot should be removed by anyone. Borderline cases probably not unless there's a consensus. Some of the notation templates - like 'discussing with user' or other relevant comments are also very appropriate for non-admins. For me the most useful thing non-admins can do here (but only where appropriate) is discuss with users, inform them that we have a username policy, and persuade them to get renamed or create a new account to prevent them being surprised and bitten by being blocked out of the blue. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, thanks. I'm just rather averse to treading on toes, I suppose I should be a bit bolder. sonia♫ 11:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can an "ordinary" user help? 

message: It seems to me that the  account ought to be blocked with instructions to send a verifying email to OTRS to prove identity, but I haven't been able to figure out the right settings or template.  Could I get a pointer?  Apologies for the newbie question. Looie496 (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  question about real name accounts 

message: Apologies to Dank, but I feel it is time to declare the "clerking" experiment a failure. The users who were actually helping in any real capacity seem to have moved on and most of the actual work aside from the reports themselves is once again being done by admins. It was a well-intentioned idea but it just didn't work. I don't see any benefit from any old random user who may or may not have an adequate understanding of the username policy "endorsing" reports. It seems rather silly and more akin to "liking" on Facebook than Wikipedia, and I believe the practice should be discontinued. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I only recently became active again, but I agree.  Administrators become administrators when the community believes they are knowledgeable of the username policy.  Having non-admins clerk is therefore not very helpful--especially considering that any competent admin should be able to determine this themselves and every admin must think for themselves and determine whether there is a violation regardless of how many people "endorse" the report. Just my view.  Malinaccier (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Occasionally, there are instances where non-admins have managed to see something an admin missed (I can think of a couple off the top of my head); however, I'd overall have to agree with Beeblebrox on this.  Also, I think that a lot of non-admins have a much lower threshold for what constitutes a violation (especially in the offensive category), which over time can do more harm than good.  Good concept, but it just doesn't seem to have worked out  The Blade of the Northern Lights  (話して下さい) 05:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I see it the way Beeblebrox does and I was for it at the time -- Alexf(talk) 11:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I should have said most of them have moved on. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it's time to pronounce this particular idea DOA, but I do think it can only be a good thing to make sure non-admins feel welcome to participate at UAA if they have useful input. The "clerkship" experiment has done some good for that, I think. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   21:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have seen more non-admin input, which has usually been helpful, especially with foreign language usernames.  I'm basically with HJ Mitchell on this.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  (話して下さい) 23:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Good move, but if we made a similar one that just said "endorse" with the same little tick icon, I think it could be beneficial. It would help to give non-admins a voice and they might feel more encouraged to comment on reports, which can make a difference in borderline cases. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   22:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, I added a note encouraging non-admin participation like the old one, but less the mention of clerkship. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   22:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I think having non admins check bot listings would be more helpful, especially of someone gives 'em a clue what they are looking for, as I've always felt the bot is a bit random, and as its not sentient, having a RLH check whether it's making any sense is helpful.  Users report the oddest stuff (someone reported User:Albert Einschtein a couple of hours ago), and I'd prefer leaving the judgement call to an admin--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we should be leaving the final decision to an admin, but, I for one, might decline or action a borderline report based heavily on a well-reasoned endorse from a non-admin. The other point is that, now we're dispensing with the "clerkship" idea, we'll attract the editors who genuinely want to help rather than those looking for another hat or a springboard to RfA (not that i'm saying that was the intention of all non-admins who were active here a few weeks ago). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   22:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bit of guidance - 'check if the bot has flagged 'Penistone' for containing 'penis' (it's a hill in Yorkshire), check if the user has edited and if the edits suggest a problem, report back.  As with you, I'd be more likely to block on a report that the user's first edits were flaky. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the bot even been functioning? I haven't seen any bot reports in quite a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed, Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot has no edits the last month. The helper bot that removes blocked users is working, but the reporting bot is apparently down. There are several queries on the operator's talk page which do not appear to have been answered. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I actually used this endorse option whenever I happened to see someone else's report I agreed with...if I needed to add a comment to it I just made it read like "Report endorsed by me...*comment here* ~~~~". I fully support it being added back in just as "Endorse", or if people think that's too much !vote-ish, "Report endorsed because..." or some form where it's much less easy to use without a reason (perhaps add a mandatory reason parameter?) Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Endorsing reports on blatant violations is a waste of time (and some of the accounts created by the LTA types need to RevDel'd, so endorsing it just creates one more revision that needs deleting), but endorsements (in template or handwritten fashion) of borderline reports supported b a sound rationale can be useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   23:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the parameter being reinstated (hopefully also improved in doing so) if others think it's useful; but since its use is mainly only useful for bot reports, maybe something like "" would work? Or rephrased to be more formal perhaps. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something like ? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   22:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sentiments endorsed by me, but I suspect simply removing false positives will be more useful than having UAA inevitably turn into a cloud of red crosses ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  coffin nails 

message: *Feel free to revert if I've been too WP:BOLD, but I have just removed the endorse option from Template:UAA since it doesn't seem to be performing a useful function (and at the least, the fact that it was awkward to use it in conjunction with a comment, making it more or less a "vote", means it needs improving even if reinstated). It strikes me that the only time this might be useful is with bot-reported usernames to draw attention to the few which may be an immediate issue in the often inaccurate bot reports; having another editor "endorse" a report makes no difference at all from what I can see, given that before a report is actioned, it must be checked by the actioning admin anyway; if it's a blatant violation, the admin should be able to easily recognise it as such and the endorsement from a second user is unnecessary, and if it's not, that's where non-admins are most able to assist, as removing reports as non-blatant vios or moving them to the holding pen doesn't require admin tools. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move, but if we made a similar one that just said "endorse" with the same little tick icon, I think it could be beneficial. It would help to give non-admins a voice and they might feel more encouraged to comment on reports, which can make a difference in borderline cases. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   22:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, I added a note encouraging non-admin participation like the old one, but less the mention of clerkship. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   22:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I think having non admins check bot listings would be more helpful, especially of someone gives 'em a clue what they are looking for, as I've always felt the bot is a bit random, and as its not sentient, having a RLH check whether it's making any sense is helpful.  Users report the oddest stuff (someone reported User:Albert Einschtein a couple of hours ago), and I'd prefer leaving the judgement call to an admin--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we should be leaving the final decision to an admin, but, I for one, might decline or action a borderline report based heavily on a well-reasoned endorse from a non-admin. The other point is that, now we're dispensing with the "clerkship" idea, we'll attract the editors who genuinely want to help rather than those looking for another hat or a springboard to RfA (not that i'm saying that was the intention of all non-admins who were active here a few weeks ago). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   22:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bit of guidance - 'check if the bot has flagged 'Penistone' for containing 'penis' (it's a hill in Yorkshire), check if the user has edited and if the edits suggest a problem, report back.  As with you, I'd be more likely to block on a report that the user's first edits were flaky. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the bot even been functioning? I haven't seen any bot reports in quite a while. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed, Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot has no edits the last month. The helper bot that removes blocked users is working, but the reporting bot is apparently down. There are several queries on the operator's talk page which do not appear to have been answered. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I actually used this endorse option whenever I happened to see someone else's report I agreed with...if I needed to add a comment to it I just made it read like "Report endorsed by me...*comment here* ~~~~". I fully support it being added back in just as "Endorse", or if people think that's too much !vote-ish, "Report endorsed because..." or some form where it's much less easy to use without a reason (perhaps add a mandatory reason parameter?) Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Endorsing reports on blatant violations is a waste of time (and some of the accounts created by the LTA types need to RevDel'd, so endorsing it just creates one more revision that needs deleting), but endorsements (in template or handwritten fashion) of borderline reports supported b a sound rationale can be useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   23:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the parameter being reinstated (hopefully also improved in doing so) if others think it's useful; but since its use is mainly only useful for bot reports, maybe something like "" would work? Or rephrased to be more formal perhaps. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something like ? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   22:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sentiments endorsed by me, but I suspect simply removing false positives will be more useful than having UAA inevitably turn into a cloud of red crosses ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Endorse template

message: Please see here. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 23:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Best bet is to simply ask the blocking admin to extend it to an indef. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see a different admin already extended the block shortly after your message here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much GiftigerWunsch for letting me know. I hadn't noticed that. Good to know. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot keeps removing my report due to a technicality. 

message: Thank you , who has just removed a whole set of unactionable reports.  I'm concerned that our hardworking new account patrollers are getting what we used in the Revenue to call 'down the steps*' syndrome. They do a great (and largely thankless) job, but there seems to be a perception that the only option for a non compliant username is to post it here to request a block, forgetting that WP:BADNAME has a hierarchy of options, of which a block is the last step, and the first step is to try talking to the chap. (*down the steps to the bridewell - the holding cells below the magistrate's court, where a rate defaulter would be taken if he had been 'had up' on a warrant of arrest, or 'sent down' for up to 30 days for failure to pay) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem is that there's a gray area, especially with promotional usernames.  I've noticed that sometimes admins will decline it if it's not spelled out why the username is promotional.  One example that comes to mind is User:Wotcc44, which seems innocuous enough until you go to their talkpage and see what they were doing.  On the other side, I know I had User:Cheadleh get shot down a few days ago (only the 3rd time that's happened, and one got VOA blocked anyways).  That was a borderline case, and I think in that instance I saw that it tripped a filter (whichever one catches promotional material) and jumped a little too fast.  I'd suggest that for promotional usernames, users should point out exactly what edits they have to back their claims up (unless the name speaks for itself; a username like User:General Electric Inc. is sufficiently obvious, whereas User:Wotcc44 isn't until you look at their contributions), while admins, before declining a report, should check the filter log to see if something shows up there.  Also, it might be good to link to WP:REALNAME somewhere on this board and to say whether or not stage names fall under this, as I see a lot of people report names and/or stage names even if they're not impersonations.  Offensive/disruptive username standards are generally similar among admins (and misguided reports are far easier to pick up on in those cases; there was one particularly amusing example yesterday), but with promotional usernames it can be a bit tricky.    The Blade of the Northern Lights  (話して下さい) 02:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it would help a great deal if people could put a bit more information in. Also, as I said with Cheadleh, a user who creates an account to write an article about their school radio is misguided, but could possibly be persuaded to stick around.  My other concern is that a blatant violation means one made with some malicious or disruptive intent.  Someone who picks User:1andonlyDonnyOsmond may have committed a terrible breach of good taste, but please don't report them here - just ask them on their userpage.  Same with User:Henrybot - just ask them would they mind changing it a bit (or even to 'bit').  It bothers me the number of reports that come here where no-one has tried talking to the user, they just want an admin to block the name. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I happen to agree with you on Cheadleh's case, and I think that a bit more communication is helpful as well (it certainly would have been in that case).  It would prevent one of our younger users from reporting something like User:Shazbot, because if they simply asked they'd get an answer without having to drag the user here (and wouldn't have to get teased for never seeing Mork and Mindy).  I've always made it a point to include a little information with my reports, and I think your suggestion about having more communication is good.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  (話して下さい) 02:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I think that's a really good idea. Do you want to have a crack at adding it? It's not a change of policy or anything, you should just be able to edit it Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gotten it added to the page notice when you edit the page; however, I can't seem to get it to display on the UAA instructions at the top of the page.  If someone wants to figure that out for me... The Blade of the Northern Lights  (話して下さい) 00:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to edit Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Header Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks... can you tell that computer science isn't my major yet?  The Blade of the Northern Lights  (話して下さい) 01:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Late to join the party here, but I agree; I've seen so many reports of users using their real name that I was considering simply adding a notice myself. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I have slightly altered the emphasis so that the take-home message, anyone may edit under their real name, is very obvious. It matches the bolding used in the other points above it better, as well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; that does look better, now that I see it.  Nice job.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  (話して下さい) 04:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are alternatives 

message: It says in the header not to report stale accounts, but we do get such reports, and what is done with them is inconsistent. I don't really have strong feelings about it either way, but we should be consistent. A clear and obvious spammer is a spammer no matter how long it takes for it to be noticed, but if they haven't edited in six months nothing is really accomplished by reporting and blocking them either. I admit I've been inconsistent myself, when clearing out old spam from user space I often block the account in cases where it is named after the whatever they were spamming, but sometimes when something like that is reported here I just slap  on it and move on. I guess an argument could be made that there is some merit for blocking in the case of spammers, as they will find it discouraging to see that not only has their spam been deleted, there is a page with their companies' name on it that has a big fat notice about how they have been blocked for spamming Wikipedia. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally if it's stale, i.e. the user hasn't edited in months, blocking them is just going to be a waste of time; there's a good chance the spammer only joined to briefly spam and then never come back. They're not going to see it, it's not going to change the fact that they don't intend to edit further anyway, and it may as well just be left. I would say it's worth blocking, however, if the username is a violation as being promotional, based on the evidence of the user's edits from months ago, if they've also made more recent ones. By which I mean, user "myfriendlycompany" adds links to its homepage to several pages in January, and then the username is spotted in August when the user fixes the wording of an article. In this case though, it's probably worth asking them to change their username of their own volition before blocking them for it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems reasonable to me.  Now, if we're talking about really bad usernames (something like User:CuntFucker69), it seems worth it to block those anyways just in case they're sleeper vandal accounts, but for spammers I think Giftiger wunsch pretty well nailed it.  Just my thoughts, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights  (話して下さい) 08:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I've never seen any reason not to block 'em when they are open-and-shut cases. It's my time to waste using the ol' Mop-and-Bucket to clean up the mess. The message is clear enough, and worth sending over and over again. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 14:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Prime example:User:Xulonpress - spammed about themselves in July 2006, spammed about their authors in November 2007 and then in March 2008, then quiescent for 2+ years until they suddenly started up again today with edits to the article about themselves. I see no reason why we shouldn't have blocked them at any time in the past years, without waiting for their recrudescence. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 15:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but for every one of those there are 100 that will never edit again.  --Jayron32 03:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason stale accounts are requested to be left alone is because of the load that the software faces when the user_touch field is invoked, which subsequently invokes the MediaWiki:Blockedtext after checking the username against the whitelist and the blocked list of usernames, apart from the ip log data maintained directly on the servers. Yet, in the case of confirmed dynamic ip proxies, it's better to enable the autoblock indefinitely, irrespective of usage being stale.   Wifione    ....... Leave a message 11:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

text: A spammer is a spammer. Blatant spammers should be blocked, regardless of staleness of the account. They may come back and the message we send is we do not condone or accept spam. -- Alexf(talk) 14:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: True Alexf. But you will have to take it on a case by case basis. It's always fair good faith practice to let even blatant spam accounts be blocked for recent indiscretions than for those committed, say, six months back. This becomes more imperative if you're talking about indefinite hard blocks. Best.   Wifione    ....... Leave a message 16:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about the autoblocks generated by hard blocks, I was under the impression that they died quickly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   04:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 24 hours. They die in 24 hours for all ips that are under the autoblock. But in an indefinite hardblock, each time the blocked user attempts to log on (say, even after six months), the user's ip(s) is(are) again autoblocked for 24 hours; thus, the autoblock is also active indefinitely for practical purposes.   Wifione    ....... Leave a message 04:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point on recurring (indefinite) autoblocks. Good to know. -- Alexf(talk) 20:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  stale accounts 

message: I made an edit somewhere inside this history. At first I had noticed there was no tag that said either  or . Because of the number of users I added it as  and then HBC AIV Helperbot cleared the list like crazy! I don't want to glitch it, but should the FixInstructions parameter be set to on? mechamind90 22:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  An adjustment may need to be made...? 

message: I really don't want to interface with this guy on his talkpage so won't do the usual UAA procedure.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: .  Wknight94 talk 01:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Jesusfuknchrist]] - 'nuff said 

message: Account  is the name of a real person, see the Sukirti Kandpal article. wp:REALNAME is a little vague, is this a username policy violation? I have dropped a  on their talkpage. - 220.101 \ 11:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real username 

message: User:SJ MSI has been adding a link to http://malayalasangeetham.info across multiple articles (Example:http://malayalasangeetham.info/php/displayActorProfile.php?a=Archana%20Kavi Archana Kavi at MSI). This was previously brought up as an EL issue here, but there is also a username issue with an account named SJ MSI promoting a site called MSI. Thoughts? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked, but how many times have they been warned for spamming?  If enough warnings have been given, I'd say block for being disruptive.    ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think blocking would be jumping the gun a bit, unless the name is determined to be a username violation (which it appears it could very well be). The editor is communicating, not just blindly adding the links, which is why I'm looking for additional input. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what I see is that the editor is trying to get consensus that the link he is posting is not linkspam, and not being very understanding about it.    ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

text: "MSI" is kind of generic. Ask them if it is meant to represent the site; then ask if they can change their user name. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that that may be the best way to proceed, but their entire editing history (60+ edits since January 7) is to add the MSI link to various articles. If they change their username wouldn't it still be considered a spam account? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends if they are asked to stop, and don't understand that what they are doing is wrong. I think they are acting in good faith; have they stopped adding the links after being warned? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They have stopped editing altogether. I can discuss and follow-up on the spam issue with them directly, I'm simply looking for additional input regarding their username to ensure there are no confounding issues there. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borderline case 

message: User:Retired user and User:Retired username are descriptive of Wikipedia things in general and do not seem appropriate user names. I don't believe either is actually being used by individials. User:Retired username and its talk page have an extensive list of sub userpages, which do not appear to be created by the named user. Please look at these. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Retired username I'm not worried about - they haven't edited since 2008 and appear to an admin who had their account renamed. The other one I will investigate. TNXMan 14:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: D'oh - the last edit for User:Retired user was 13 March 2010, not 2011. This was probably a renaming as well. TNXMan 14:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Retired user 

message: Please be aware that I am working on cleaning out the category, because of this I may shift some of the backlog to UAA. Cheers --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 20:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cat:UAA 

message: What should we do about the really obvious corporate usernames?  There's a bit of a mixed response here, so it'd be nice if everyone was at least on the same page.  For example, User:Airzonapromotionsllc got a uaa-wait tag, while User:Paranormal 911 Investigations LLC was softerblocked; neither one had any edits.  My personal feeling is that the most blatant corporate accounts (things with Inc. or LLC at the end, for instance) should be blocked the way obviously disruptive usernames are, because I view them as being blatant violations of the username policy.  Obviously, I'd recommend a softerblock for an account that hasn't edited, but I'm not an admin so I'll leave that up to you admins to decide.  I don't have any particularly strong feeling about it, I just want to get it straightened out so I know what to expect/do when I check the new user log.  It seems like this is the only slight inconsistency, so it'd be nice to at least try to get some clarification. The Blade of the Northern Lights  (話して下さい) 03:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we should wait. We had a former arb whos signature looked like this: The Uninvited Co., Inc. If he made his account today he may have been blocked. AGF comes before keeping the spammers at bay --Guerillero | My Talk 03:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I intentionally didn't include the word "company" above because that has a couple different meanings; Inc. and LLC, by contrast, have very specific definitions.  I wouldn't report a username that had company on the end until it edited (and that username especially evokes the other definition of company), whereas something like Paranormal 911 Investigations LLC can't be anything but representing the organization it's named after. The Blade of the Northern Lights  (話して下さい) 03:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal take on this is that it would be pointless to block an account if it's never going to be used. I mean, blocks are meant to prevent a user from editing, if they never edit, then the result is the very same. Of course, this is just my opinion and I know that other admins do softerblock in these cases. I'd say that both results are in keeping with upolicy and I'd chalk it up to admin discretion...   Salvio  Let's talk about it! 12:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should wait. To use Daneil Case's example, if they have a baltantly corproate username but then start (constructively) editing articles about gardening, we can talk to them about changing their username. If they never edit and disappear abck into the ether, there's no issue. Only if the username and the edits are promotional should we be blocking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   12:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason I ask is because admins will preemptively block usernames like User:Hayleysboobless for being obvious username violations (which I support).  It's not that big a deal, I just want to make sure I'm on the same page as the admins here. The Blade of the Northern Lights  (話して下さい) 00:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of clarification from the admins 

message: * I just came across a username User:Russiandictatorssuck , which this username-checker missed; his contributions list is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Russiandictatorssuck . I saw just now that the blacklist contains various forms of "sucks", as in "[He/she/it] sucks", but not the plural form as in "[They] suck". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *No need to bring it up on my page guys (though feel free), the list is there so people can edit it. I'll go add this now though. -- DQ (t)   (e) 00:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *This should work. -- DQ (t)   (e) 00:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suck 

message: * The system just now picked up 2 false positives: "crap" in "scrap" and "cock" in "peacock". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  False positives 

message: * Search just now by  found 61 user pages and user talk pages whose names contain "Osama": Osama is a common Arabic name.
* Search just now by  found 14 user pages and user talk pages whose names contain Laden" or "laden": all but one of them refer to Osama bin Laden, and none to the ordinary English adjective "laden" = "loaded".
** Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the bot reported names - they appeared to be legitimate names. I do think, however, that the bot should keep reporting them for the next few weeks. TNXMan 14:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osama bin Laden 

message: I noticed this post on the bot-reported sub-page:
 *
 *:Matched: enema -- DQB (t) (e) 22:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think us non-admins could add that template an it would be fine. Sumsum2010·T·C 04:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've made the edit. If there's a problem, I'll find out soon enough. – AJLtalk 04:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that non-admins removing erroneous bot reports would be a problem for anyone. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I already do that for such reports as a non-admin, and a few times I've declined user reports that clearly fall under WP:REALNAME.  Non-admins should be able to handle the most obvious no-brainer false positives and misfires- anything not quite as straightforward should be left to those with the tools. The Blade of the Northern Lights  (話して下さい) 03:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about "clerks" 

message: Almost every edit by  from their very first four years ago has been to promote their organization (with the exception of some vandalism which they seemed to feel was justified because it was a joke). They've added and/or edited links to http://www.ncfr.org on multiple occasions, from that very first one up to today. I was hesitant to report them only because I thought some people may object to blocking a username which has been around for so long. But I don't think they should be rewarded just because they've managed to escape scrutiny for so long. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason not to block them --Guerillero | My Talk 20:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That's why I've just softerblocked.   Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For an account which has done little other than promotion and vandalism I think a block which gives the option of continuing under a new user name is fairly generous. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old but continuing violation 

message: As I understand his position, User:Daniel Case feels that when an account with an unacceptable corporate/organization username has only edited to request the creation of an article about themselves, we should not block immediately, in an effort to be less bitey. I, on the other hand, feel that this is a situation where the  fits the ticket perfectly well, since in the long run that username is just not gonna fly, and the wording of the softerblock template is non-bitey. Comments from Daniel and others? --Orange Mike  |  Talk 15:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually if the article's rejected (as it often is), they never edit again. Look, no one's going to go looking for information on companies in project space, much less at AfC, anyway, and it's not like those requests are kept forever. They ought to be allowed to at least participate in discussions there about why their company isn't notable without getting blocked. I feel someone posting there is not really planning to become a member of the community in any event (I also feel the same way about test edits in the sandbox, as long as they aren't adding long copypaste from their websites or other pr materials. However, userspace drafts are different things, as they would otherwise be permanent). Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I don't remember ever dealing with this issue in the specific case where the only edit was to request an article creation. However, for usernames which are names of businesses or organisations I tend to block immediately if I think the intention was clearly promotional, but to gently inform them of the username policy if not. However, in the latter case I usually find that another admin comes along and blocks the account anyway. However, I rarely use , because it encourages the user to think it will be OK as long as they change their username, which in most cases is not so. Time and again I find users who have been told they can change their username subsequently having their requests for unblock declined for spam reasons. It is really not doing them a kindness to mislead them in that way. (Actually that problem is at its worst with , which says in bold type "Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new usernam", but it does also occur to a lesser extent with . I sometimes wonder if the admins who frequently use  actually have any experience of dealing with unblock requests. I doubt that in five percent of cases is it actually true that the username is the only problem.) I occasionally make exceptions, but in most cases I either decide that an immediate spamusername block is called for, or else decide to just give a warning, either hand-crafted or 	 JamesBWatson (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If a user will in good faith use the AfC process, why not give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them a chance to change their username?  A day or so wouldnt be too bad.  I feel the same way for promotional usernames that don't actually promote.--v/r - TP 16:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel similarly to TParis. I also think it's important that we don't drive away editors... but we really shouldn't make exceptions too often (ie. not blocking someone because they're a good writer, etc.). ceranthor 17:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

text: As I'm planning to start working some at AfC as soon as this implemented, here's my view.  If the article is a genuine, good-faith attempt to create an article, even if it would fall under A7, I'll discuss it with the user.  If, however, the article is blatant spam and/or a copyvio (that was actually the case with the only AfC submission I ever reviewed), I'll report it here.  That will encourage good-faith editors while driving away spammers and people who could potentially do serious damage by adding copyrighted material.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  (話して下さい) 23:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I check with AfC when they submit and though I usually don't do AfC review work I do add notes for the reviewers when the new user has a spam/coi/company name issue. I block obvious spam cases and tend to do softerblock for non-profits when they are not overly spammy or blatant copyvios. I have seen a surge of spam from India and China in the past few months where they blatantly feel this is Facebook or their Website ("Welcome to our company site blah, blah"), so I check UAA and the three filters daily. Reading the above comments from DanielCase I will start to be more relaxed and less bitey in the narrow cases when they are not overly spammy and give them a chance at AfC, giving them the standard username/coi warning instead on an outright block.  -- Alexf(talk) 14:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  UAA and AfC 

message: Is it my imagination, or has DQB been shut down for the better part of a week now? Granted, it had its misfires, but it also had a number of good "hits"...many more so than false positives, I'd say. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln)  (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's around, just set to shut off while I fix the routines in it, but I moved to a new laptop, so i've had to reinstall almost everything, and lifes been busy (and stressful). I'm really hoping that I can get it back today after I clear my normal daily activities for wiki. Sorry for the delay. -- DQ (t)   (e) 13:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To emphasize, the bot's health is seriously comprimised by the way it is trying to run right now, that's why it's staying off. It's not dealing properly with the wait list, and it's because the bot is limited to very little operation time. (For the full report please see the archive of my talkpage (on the bot subpage). -- DQ (t)   (e) 14:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. We'll just have to muddle along the way we did before, then, and that's no bad thing. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln)  (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot is in 'potty training' mode and could use anyone's help for cleaning out the backlog @ User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Testground. -- DQ (t)   (e) 00:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Backlog cleared. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   01:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where'd the bot go? 

message: It's not a bug, it's an issue with TS where the checking the waiting list part won't run properly, but runs fine on my comp, so I did it manually, which sadly means we now have ~24-48 (somewhere in that range) hours worth of waiting usernames because I couldn't run it yesterday. Sorry guys, -- DQ (t)   (e) 01:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the bot flooded 

message: I have started a RFC on a policy related to usernames at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RFC: Use of non-latin or unicode characters as usernames and would request that interested users give their feedback. Regards SoWhy 15:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up. Will go look. -- Alexf(talk) 15:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification: [[Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RFC: Use of non-latin or unicode characters as usernames]] 

message: But it's been over 3 weeks already.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.203.56 (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Over three weeks of what? Please be more specific if you have a comment or a request. -- Alexf(talk) 14:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the IP is suggesting that the username should be blocked, however, the user hasn't editted in over 3 weeks.  UAA is only meant for accounts that have recently edited.  So the OP statement should be read as "I'm reporting User:Dutchshite but it's been over three weeks already."--v/r - TP 18:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand now that you explained it. I have given the user a notice about the username. In a few days it might be blocked if no response or CHU request is forthcoming, though he's probably gone. -- Alexf(talk) 19:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just leave it be as a stale account.--v/r - TP 19:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Dutchshite]] 

message: I want to know if we should change point number two in the header to "has made recent attempts to edit" (because technically those that are blocked by the edit filter are clearly promoting their stuff and harming Wikipedia, but they have not, er, edited yet because of said filter). TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 13:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any anti-spam filters are set to disallow. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I think were getting more false positives by the minute with having FartFoo on my bot's blacklist...is it even a a policy violation? (Create this to discuss) -- DQ (t)   (e) 03:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would block the likes of "I farted on your face", but I wouldn't block just for having "fart" in the username. It does seem to be producing quite a few false positives, though. Is there any way to narrow down the filters to catch "he/she/it/they farted" or "farted on/at" but not "fart123" and other immature but relatively innocuous usernames? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   03:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Meh.  This one word doesn't seem like a big issue, and is innocuous more than it isn't.  The cases where it is an obvious vio can be picked up by diligent humans who can tell the difference between the obviously innocuous (OldFart123, or Farthing or any other clearly good names) and the violations (I fart in your face, etc.)  --Jayron32 03:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That reminds me of a coworker who, when corporate email first came into existence, was assigned the usual first initial + last name moniker, resulting in an unfortunate combination: phart. Naturally, since this was a government organization, the name didn't change until the whole email system was upgraded and naming policy changed to include the full first and last name in the email address. If he got so accustomed to it that he decided to use it on Wikipedia, I wonder if the name would find its way to this noticeboard? I daresay the bot might have missed it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  FartFoo & Policy 

message: So I found out today (by looking at the wait list and everything) that the bot is removing names from the waitlist as soon as they get on it. This is because of an edit conflict caused by they way I built the software. So if you guys can just keep an eye on User:DeltaQuad/UAA/Wait (the history gives easy block links) while I fix it that would be great. -- DQ (t)   (e) 07:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good at the moment, should be good. I have merged the module into one, and it runs well within 5 minutes right now. -- DQ (t)   (e) 07:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well I found another bot failure 

message: Is it just me, or did the blocking links in  stop working properly? I notice the blocking choices have changed a bit. For the most part the checkboxes seem correct, but the reason field is no longer auto-filled in. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the new system upgrade. -- DQ (t)   (e) 05:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also disabling the preloaded block settings from the various block buttons.  I don't think testing is real high on WMFs list of things to do before releasing new software. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Template:User-uaa 

message: * "Semen" is coded to be bot-reported. It should be taken off the list as "cum" and "jizz" are more used as a derogatory term for semen.
*: Another reason to remove it from the list is that Semen is also a popular boy name in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be interesting. Also interesting would be humorous material about naming lawyers' daughters "Sue", etc. :)   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily daughters. ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Semen" 

message: I'm sure this was a mistake but  removed several entries from the user reported section.  I'm not going to attempt to fix the error because I'll probably do more damage than good but I thought it should be noted. OlYellerTalktome 18:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. All fixed. Thanks for notifying me of this section.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large removal of user reported violations 

message: I know none of you are paid any more than I am for your work here, but is it too much to ask that you check back on stuff you put in the holding pen after a week or so? I was on vacation for a while, and didn't check in here for a while after returning. When I did, I found nobody had followed up on HP reports in over a month. Reports from Sept. 1 were still in the pen on Oct. 6. The majority of them were, as is usual, accounts that never made a substantive edit, but it took a while to clear an entire months worth of reports. Admins and other users were still adding reports but apparently ignoring the massive backlog they were adding them to the end of. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice the holding pen has the AIV helperbot header on the page but it's not one that helperbot7 checks at present. Would you like me to add it to the list? That would at least mean the blocked ones are removed automatically which might save a bit of time. Will (aka Wimt) 22:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that would be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All sorted. The bot should remove any blocked ones now and add and remove the backlog template as configured on that page. Will (aka Wimt) 18:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. At least something came of this, not one single report was removed by a user from when I opened this thread till I cleared yet another backlog just now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  bitching about the holding pen backlog 

message: It doesn't say anywhere on here, but on WP:RFPP, new reports go on the top, and WP:AIV reports go on the bottom.  What is the practice here, and is there any place that this could be placed so that there is no confusion? - SudoGhost 21:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally they go on top but it really doesn't matter. If you use WP:TW or other automated tools it will place it for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New reports on top or bottom?