Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention/Archive 1

message: In principal, this works the same as AIV, in that users can add names to the list, admins review it and either block or remove the report, anything slightly controversial can go to WP:AN. AIV helperbot could (if we ask HighInBC nicely) remove blocked usernames automatically, whilst non infringements can be manually removed by an admin. All username violations could go through this new alert board. The key thing is, that is specifically states should generally only be listed if they have begun editing, it's pointless listing otherwise and just wastes time. Feel free to make any changes to the main page, or simply say it's a pile of crap! We just need to come up with a fresh idea in case RFCN gets deleted Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 14:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know some people are going to disagree with the "has begun editing" part, even though I feel that's critical for eliminating some of the problem reports seen recently at RFCN. I'm thinking that part will have to be changed before a consensus agrees to it, but we'll see how it goes. Leebo T/C 15:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? People in blatent violation can be listed and/or simply blocked (without editing). Borderline cases that have not edited at all cause no problem to the encyclopedia. People listing them need to be hit with a cluestick. Repeatedly if necessary. The driving factor should be "do not create work where work isn't necessary", in my opinion. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The thing is that it's my personal opinion, and my personal way of handling borderline names -- waiting to see if they're actually going to edit. But that's not something we need to enforce, rather simply recommend to people who do it repeatedly. But yes, it's true, I keep links to possible problem usernames and check back every once in a while to see if they're actually going to edit. Leebo T/C 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, this needed to be done. I can add this page to the list my bot services with ease. I will do that now. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is done. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I leave you in charge of setting all the bot parameters e.g. back log tags and what not? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The current settings should be okay. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How it works

message: OK I certainly like this page as a replacement to reporting usernames to AIV. As you are intending it to be for all usernames though, how will this fit in with the result of the RFCN MfD given that there's currently little consensus there to close it down? Will this page just go live alongside RFCN if it is kept, or will there be another RFCN MfD to gauge opinion with this new alternative available? Will (aka Wimt) 18:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the MfD is kept, I'll propose a merge, but this idea has consensus on WP:AN and WT:AIV. There's no point in running another MfD because if this is something we can discuss on WT:RFCN. We certainly shouldn't have both WP:RFCN and WP:UAA. My concern at present is that since this proposal was put to the MfD, there have only been 2 comments, yet as I've previously said, strong consensus is to have this page used instead of RFCN, but at other locations. Any idea's of what to do? I considered closing the MfD myself so we could get on with sorting all the template out, but that would be wrong, and I'd most probably get shot! Ryan Postlethwaite 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm yeah I agree that there's no point going for another MfD. As far as the current one is concerned, I agree that it should be closed now because much of the discussion there has been largely superseded. I think you're probably best not closing it yourself, if for no other reason but to avoid flak! The problem with the current MfD is that it can't really be closed as delete, based on the discussion there (even though much of the discussion is largely irrelevant now). I guess someone could close it as no consensus and then propose a merge at RFCN. There's no easy way of doing it whatever though! Will (aka Wimt) 19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the comments, I believe it would be closed as keep. If Ryan is set on having this replace RFCN and we can tweek templates and such, I would be all for closing the MfD as keep or no consensus (whatever wording you choose) and immediately going for Request to Move. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that closing as a keep or no consensus is fine and that proposing a merge afterwards would be in line as well. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The page does not say how to report a username (which template etc.) could you please clarify? GDonato (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Click edit this page on the main project page and all will be revealed! For clarity however, its;
* - Reason the username fails the username policy. ~~~~
Ryan Postlethwaite 19:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah OK, I would maybe like to see it in the orange box, (picky, I know). GDonato (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A thought

message: This seems like a good idea AFAICT.
The "for" of the name seems awkward to me, but I can't at the moment think of a phrase that works better. How about just Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Usernames ? - jc37 06:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we really need to keep away from the use of the term "Admin" or "Administrators". The current use is not great, but it isn't incredibly bad either. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 13:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is that it's not really a noticeboard, it should function more of an alert board, I'd personally be happy to rename if thats the consensus, but my opinion is that this one is fine. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If your talking about the bot incorrectly merging reports earlier, that was due to the reports being in a format very far from the AIV format proposed, and the format described in the instructions on this page. The same goes for it failing to remove the header, while removing the comments. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Is Twinkle reporting names here instead of AIV? As this history is ridiculous considering reports shouldn't be made here at the moment. I'm all in favour of this board but we shouldn't use it until it's actually active. Will (aka Wimt) 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I firmly believe that the report username function in TW needs to be disabled permanently. I don't use the program, so I don't have any clue on how it's used, but it seems to cause problems. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it just required that a person manually enter a reason it would be a lot better, we could hold people accountable for their reports then. AIV gets loads of bad reports too, they made a template for the talk page of users that give improper reports too often. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could modify  ? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed board 

message: Twinkle is already reporting username violations to this page. I don't see what's left to discuss, so why don't we go ahead and begin the "process"? Of course, if I'm missing something, the page could always be protected. Sean William 20:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah we can go ahead, there's a link to my to do list up above somewhere, any chance you can do the honours? I've got no internet connection. There's a few templates to change and what not (RFCN MfD could do with closing as tag as historical aswell) - see my to do list though! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By my calculations the AN header, RFCN tag and RFCN MFD are still left to do. GDonato (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twinkle? 

message: When people use Twinkle to report usernames to this board, the username is added under a fourth level header. However, when the user is blocked, the AIV Helperbot doesn't remove the header. (example) Either one could change to avoid this problem: TW could avoid headers altogether in favor of a ";", while the AIV helperbot could be altered to remove the heading. Either way, the code will have to be modified by somebody. We'll have to decide what solution we want to pick. Sean William 20:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A notice has been left on AzaToth's page (earlier today) about changing TW, as this is probably easier than changing the bot. GDonato (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware, AzaToth has now changed twinkle to report as on AIV, it's just going to take time for users to purge their cache or restart their comps. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right :-) GDonato (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Excellent. I just saw GDonato's TW report go smoothly. Sean William 21:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twinkle/AIV Helpberbot conflict 

message: Could someone let this page know to change reporting usernames should go to WP:UAA? Don't forget to mention the format it should be reported with. Also, could someone let WP:AN know the change? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done GDonato (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/suggestions]] 

message: Given that the MfD seems to be heading towards a keep concensus, how do we reconcile this board with that one? Should contentious issued still be refer to RFCN (rather than ANI)? WjBscribe 21:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The can be a prosed merge. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with a proposed merge. But since it won't be good to have people reporting at three places (UAA, RFCN and AIV), I suggest that we suspend RFCN for a short period and proceed with the new system. I know there will be unhappy people no matter what. Flyguy649talkcontribs 23:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is currently a discussion about the proposed merge at WT:RFCN if you want to voice your opinions. Will (aka Wimt) 23:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kill it. We don't need more and more small "community noticeboards" as they have a notable tendency to become insular fiefdoms, whatever the best intentions of the creators. Ryan, fergoshsakes read WP:PRO - every line of it is from painful experience of what happens to what sounded like good ideas - David Gerard 02:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to ignore David's comments and propose we suspend RFCN for a trial period of WP:UAA. This way, if WP:UAA falls flat on it's face or turns into a bigger mess than RFCN, it can easily be recreated. AFTER THAT, it should be marked historical. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 02:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of RFCN

message: The instructions actively discourage any kind of discussion, or even comments. I'm fine with the idea that username violations which take imagination don't need to be blocked, but that doesn't mean that we can say "there is no need to disagree with other people's reports here". In fact, that would be the exact opposite of what it should mean. -Amarkov moo! 02:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, and High, this is the type of thing I referred to as stifling or limiting community discussion. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 03:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My major concern 

message: How about this page has 2 sections. Initial reports, simple cases, brief discussion if any and Reports under discussion where an admin who rejects a report as borderline or is not sure and wants more input can move a report from Inital reports. ie:
===Initial reports===
* - Username too similar to vandal username. Random User 1 04:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An improvement, but I would like to add the stipulation that an editor can add a note under a report requesting that it be discussed (providing reasoning of course). CASCADIAHowl/Trail 04:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea Viridae and I agree with Cascadia. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 04:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think this is good. It combines the AIV and RFCN onto one page, without (hopefully) all the votiness that drives/drove people to distraction. Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good proposal and one which I have suggested before myself (see here. GDonato (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that saying YES when moving it to the discussion area is redundant. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 13:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: * - Username too similar to vandal username. Random User 1 04:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial reports

message: * - Username too similar to vandal username (. Random User 2 04:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An improvement, but I would like to add the stipulation that an editor can add a note under a report requesting that it be discussed (providing reasoning of course). CASCADIAHowl/Trail 04:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea Viridae and I agree with Cascadia. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 04:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think this is good. It combines the AIV and RFCN onto one page, without (hopefully) all the votiness that drives/drove people to distraction. Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good proposal and one which I have suggested before myself (see here. GDonato (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reports under discussion

message: * - Username too similar to vandal username. Random User 1 04:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that saying YES when moving it to the discussion area is redundant. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 13:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial reports

message: Why has UAA been removed from the white bar where links to RFC and AIV are housed? Also could we have a link to UAA below that to AIV that is found on the special page after you block a user? Furthermore, should UAA bee linked to in the  template? Just some thoughts... SGGH speak! 10:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was removed from the white bar because this noticeboard is only proposed at the moment and hasn't been subjected to a full discussion. That discussion is now going on at WT:RFCN though. Will (aka Wimt) 10:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: questions

message: There are two reports  and  that have remained for some time. Is this because the admins are unsure, if so it's a bit concerning that we have two that may need discussion already. Perhaps a solution like that above (2 sections) is needed. GDonato (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Logically, the two sections should exist. This is supposed to replace RFCN for most discussions (save the most monstrous and heated). CASCADIAHowl/Trail 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason reports are hanging around here for so long at the moment is because there aren't (m)any admins actually watching this page as it stands, what with it only being proposed. However, I do agree that we should implement something on this page that facilitates discussion, else it wouldn't be much of a replacement of RFCN. Will (aka Wimt) 15:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate what you are saying but tens of reports have passed and been dealt with whereas a couple hang around- this may be due to the fact that admins are unsure and are too scared to block or remove- then again I may be wrong. GDonato (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True but note that just because users that have been reported here are blocked, it doesn't mean that they are being blocked because they are reported here - the admin could have noticed that username at any number of other places. Of course they may be though! Clearly some admins are watching this page, but not nearly as many as AIV at the moment (as you might expect). Will (aka Wimt) 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: If we have say 2 headers, username reported and username for discussion, the username for discussion header is removed by the bot if the username directly above it is blocked, apart from that, I have serious concerns; this means the page is just as bureacratic as RFCN if we have the discussion part to it, it's also way too much process for a simple issue, I think we would be far better off removing usernames that need dicussion to AN. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes and no. If we make it that there isn't any discussion and usernames are only blocked or not blocked here on the basis of a decision of one admin, then we risk this page just becoming a slightly more trigger happy fork of AIV. Of course, many of the reports will be blatant and those certainly wouldn't need discussion. However, for borderline cases, not including any discussion here and deferring them to AN would mean this isn't really a replacement of RFCN. Plus at both MfDs, particularly the most recent one, a lot of people have stated that they prefer RFCN as a forum for discussing usernames as opposed to AN for a number of reasons, not least that AN has far too much going on as it is already. Now segregating this page, as has been suggested above has many advantages over the current dual system of AIV / RFCN. Most importantly, there wouldn't be any discussion here over reports that clearly didn't need any, as discussion would only begin if it was identified as borderline and not clean blocked or dismissed altogether by an admin. This page would therefore also be better equipped to cope with the greater influx of reports at RFCN recently, which RFCN isn't really suited to by design (it becomes rather crowded). So I think that this page would be better than RFCN if implemented so as to allow discussion, but I wouldn't be convinced if it was introduced as a username fork of AIV. Will (aka Wimt) 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Ryan, when you proposed this you specifically stated it would be a mixture of RFCN and AIV, and that is why many even considered going along with it. If a discussion here gets too lengthy, then it should move elsewhere, but for some discussion to take place on an overcrowded board such as AN or ANI, those discussions will get lost in the chaos. The bot needs to be tweaked to not delete anything below a certain type of heading (and TW needs to be tweaked to not use headings, although my preference is to not have the Username Report function at all in TW). CASCADIAHowl/Trail 17:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just posted at WT:TW about having the heading function removed. Flyguy649talkcontribs 17:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the header function may have been removed from the latest version of TW but it won't take effect till everyone has restarted their browser / cleared their cache. Will (aka Wimt) 18:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as the discussion goes, it seems to be running just fine right now. This page is in rather active use, just check the history. Its running much smoother, and does not seem to have any errors that I can spot so far. The discussion section may or may not be needed, I'm willing to try this either way :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem

message: I'd like one at least one person to explain to me why we just can't use WP:AIV for obvious violations (WoW, racist,ect) and RFCN for disputed ones? Can anyone explain why that's so hard? -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 00:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was actually started to take over username functions from AIV; I'm not sure why it's morphed into this. -Amarkov moo! 01:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did we need to take away username functions from AIV? It's a 5 second decision by an admin whether to block or not, and a bot clears it away if it's blocked. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some blatant username infringements are good faith so they shouldn't be labbeled as vandals, AIV get bogged down with non existent usernam violations, RFCN is way to bureaucratic and gets too many names that aren't against policy, here we can block or remove and move on. Also, the bot functions here as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds exactly like how AIV worked before. You still haven't explained why we need a new page (and it takes only a few seconds for any admin or even an editor to remove bad reports). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good faith username violations are note vandals, so why should they be labelled as such, even if they are against policy? This page is here to stop clogging of AIV, we can still have short discussions on usernames, but without vandal IP's getting lost in the discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like the PC people who got HBC to code in the userlinks template after someone complained about using . -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Userlinks can be used on AIV as well, as it always has been, but that point aside, AIV is for vandalism, usernames aren't vandalism, people who have an interest in usernames can concentrate on this page. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems like a redundant waste of our already stretched resources of admins. I'll let other admins concentrate on this then. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Royalguard11, this is more a way to pacify the Slash and Burn group wanting to delete RFCN, and the people from RFCN who did not want things going to AIV for the bite. Even though when it was proposed it was supposed to be a combination of RFCN and AIV, it has turned into AIV with a little possibility for comment. I'm not sure why it was decided to turn it into just AIV for usernames with a different name, which was what those of us working to keep RFCN from closing were hoping to avoid. CASCADIAHowl/Trail 02:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you can note on the page, I've requested some comment on one of them :) This does save the issue of having a "case" on each name, which lets the easy ones go by without much fuss, and the more difficult ones to be (hopefully) discussed and figured out. —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is only what we make of it, if you want to comment on a name just do it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 05:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that I can only get a response out of people after calling it a waste of resources is very, very sad. Take from that what you will. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 05:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm... really, this page has been under active discussion you know :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's a fair shot at fixing the problem with AIV, and there certainly is one. I go on and on about how AIV is incorrectly used for username violations, people are getting tired of my complaining! Lets just give it time to iron the kinks out and see how it works :) SGGH speak! 09:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: Thanks High for activating UAA in the gray bar... although I thought we were going to not have it under "Editing Abuse". Logically, it appears 3RR would be under editing abuse. Perhaps we could swap the two? CASCADIAHowl/Trail 00:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not my addition to that template, but I do agree with your suggested placement, I will move it now. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gray Bar Placement 

message: Just want to make a note that I'm happy with how the merge discussion turned out. The good faith is preserved in not labeling usernames chosen with good intentions as vandals, and any that need real discussion are brought to a Request for Comment page open to all and labelled as such. This may be one of those shining examples of the wiki-community making a decision. -Mask? 06:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Happy with how this turned out

message: It took me almost a full minute to click why "Puppet with a sock" was a violation", having just banned "cock rammer" and "pussy rammer" it wasn't in the mind set to clock sockpuppets *rolls eyes* :D SGGH speak! 20:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shocking - that's all I'm saying! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 11:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. Is there any update on getting UAA linked to on the special "blablahuser" has just been blocked? The page with the links to the talk page, contribs, block logs and AIV? It's nice to be able to zoom back to AIV after blocking someone, and would be nice to get to UAA the same way without navigating :) SGGH speak! 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that would probably be a good idea, wouldn't have a clue how to implement it though! Anyone was to move in and enlighten us? By what your saying I'm guessing the page you come to directly after you've blocked the user? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Got it one without being an admin (what do I win?) GDonato (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ha, Might change it tomorrow, but I've got a strong feeling I'll be shot at by a large number of people if I do! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BOLD? GDonato (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I just added it, lets see what happens. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Going slow

message: Right guys, we've had this page active for a couple of days now, hows everyone finding it? Are there any teething problems or things people would like to see? It's certainly reduced WP:RFCN traffic! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have dealt with many names very efficiently without incident. I think if we keep RFCN for cases needing dicussion, and leave AIV and ANI out of it then these 2 pages will work out fine. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah definately, upon reflection RFCN would most probably be the best place for discussion, I've seen a number of cases pass through that would normally ended up at RFCN from AIV. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely. GDonato (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Working well, good work! Doesn't make coffee though, but as I drink tea that is probably best... make it make tea. SGGH speak! 21:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Working great so far, especially using Twinkle Wildthing61476 21:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah ditto, working very well as a place for Twinkle to dump off to. Anything that stays on here for a few hours or so we can move off to Requests for comment for usernames, provided that the user was spoken to before hand, or just carry on a conversation on here. (using **'s) —— Eagle101Need help? 21:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There were some problems with Twinkle but Azatoth fixed it now it works like a charm..I have seen more username reported here than on AIV..----Cometstyles 22:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hows everyone finding the page? 

message: I've created the above template to post to users who keep on making wrong reports here, could everyone take a look and format it where required? It possibly needs more wikilinking, bolding e.t.c. and the wording could maybe be tweaked. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it into the main header of the page . Ryan Postlethwaite 17:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks perfect, not bitey, and tells them what to do if they disagree. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we don't start templating the regulars :) —— Eagle101Need help? 19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Regulars that don't read the instructions need to be templated. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: !? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a harsh warning! Leebo T/C 19:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you've got to be strong to get the msg across! Ryan Postlethwaite 19:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: plagiarism in wikilinking. :-( GDonato (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ya, I never understood why templates are "demeaning", nobody has ever explained that to me. Using twinkle is no excuse not to read the instructions. I could give a personal message, but it would be saying the same thing as the template. That whole WP:DTTR is just an essay that does not have my support. I would support something along the lines of Wikipedia:Don't template people who don't need it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 12:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support WP:DTTR, generally templates inform people of the policy. An experienced user probably just needs reminding, not informing them like it's the first time- this may seem like you are ignoring their previous good work. GDonato (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Being an experienced user does not mean they know the instructions for this page, there is nothing wrong with using the template. Also, there are ranges of templates, so they are not just for first notifications. Why would you think of a template as ignoring previous work? It does not follow, it just seems like a huge assumption. Experienced users don't always know better. I fail to see how a custom message that says the same thing is any more or less offensive. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 12:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying offensive, just annoying. Taking Template:Uw-vandalism1 as an example, it directs users to the sandbox and the introduction, if an experienced long-time contributor was directed towards the introduction if they included something which appeared to be a first instance of vandalism then I doubt that they would be very happy. Perhaps templates for regulars are suitable for more obscure policies then? GDonato (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people who post usernames here don't need reminding of policy, they need to be told what policy is, they don't even see the page, twinkle does it for them, templating the regulars is required in certain situations, and this is one of those. It's not warning per se, it's more of a friendly reminder. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I like it, I did some formatting stuff. Cheers, – Rianaऋ 13:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers R, you've done a great job - I'm certainly no template wizard! Ryan Postlethwaite 13:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, I should probably clarify - I copied the formatting off  ;) I'm not particularly handy when it comes to techy stuff. – Rianaऋ 13:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|uw-UAA}} (moved to {{tl|uw-uaa}})

message: Can all admins remember that when performing a username block, they should disable the auto blocker and make sure account creation block is disabled, these should only be used for extremely offensive usernames or usernames of users which are obviously here to cause trouble. There's been a few problems lately with account creation being blocked. Cheers :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 11:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Account creation blocked 

message: Just thought everyone might find this funny, a vandal just moved the page to the above link! Ryan Postlethwaite 12:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should increase the block length methinks. 21 bad page moves in 10 minutes. GDonato (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I blocked on sight, hardly looked at the contribs when I blocked - it was just as a protective measure. Now blocked indef. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Inappropriate username reporting team]] 

message: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HBC NameWatcherBot. If you support or oppose the idea of this bot(or just have suggestions or constructive criticism), please make your opinion known here. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Subpage sounds OK, how about increasing the repeat rate for names, usually five letters have been OK'd on RFCN, feel free to disagree. GDonato (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, 6 or 7 - User:RossSsSnake (as unlikely as it is) would trigger 5 despite it actually meaning something (albeit without punctuation) GDonato (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Great work on the bot, btw- finally the new user patrollers can do something different! :-) GDonato (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot request for approval made 

message: Username blocks should permit account creation so there is no need for them to request unblocking. Also username block unblock requests should use . Having indefinetly block in bold is also a bit bitey. I didn't want to change anything myself as there may be a reason for these things. GDonato (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't like  for the same reason I didn't like  (which ended up deleted). If a user has been reported here then there is nothing they can do upon receiving this message to avoid being blocked. If an admin decides to block them, then they will receive  anyway, so this template is superfluous. And if an admin decides not to block them, then we might assume that their name is not in violation of the username policy (at least not blatantly) so this template could be seen as biting. I think it is better to to await decision here before adding anything to their userpage. If the decision is that the violation is blatant, then  does all that is necessary; if the decision is not to block straight away then leaving  is a better course of action in my opinion. Will (aka Wimt) 11:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will has some valid points. If the name is found not the be in blatant violation then the user need never know it was even questioned. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Reading again, I don't understand the scope of this template- there are no transclusions of it.  tells a user when their name is discussed,  expresses concern. Apart from that there is nothing else to say to the user. What is the purpose of this? GDonato (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say the template is redundant. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Redundant template, per Will's points above. Account name is reported, account name is blocked if in violation, not blocked if not in violation, discussed if iffy. We shouldn't have to make it more complex than that. – Rianaऋ 17:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed from the header. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I think you are all right, it was a bit bitey and I apologise for this as I created the template. Happy editing! The Sunshine Man 17:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|UAA}} 

message: I have added :Category:Usernames editors have expressed concern over to  so that HBC AIV helperbot can detect when users have been given the template. If a report is made here on a user that has the UsernameConcern template on their page, the bot will make a note of it below the report. This should avoid people being blocked on sight after the route of discussion has already begun. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will probably allow better follow up as well for users that have been given the concern template. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UsernameConcern template 

message: The new bot is now live, it will report usernames to a sub-page which is transcluded on to WP:UAA. The bots functionality can be adjusted by editing:
#The control panel - General settings including an on/off switch
#The blacklist - A list of strings that set off the bot if they are in a username
#The whitelist - A list of exceptions to strings on the blacklist
These pages are protected to avoid abuse, but you can suggest changes on their talk pages. These settings should be determined by consensus. If you need to stop the bot on a specific page, remove the "" from the page. If you want to stop the bot all together then you can turn it off in the control panel. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot Live 

message: Is it just me, or are there an AWFUL lot of poop/poopy usernames lately?  In the last weekish, we've blocked: User:Poopy_face101, User:Poopypoopypiepie, User:NIGGA POOP, User:Brandonpoopy, User:Poopy12332, User:Poopy356t, User:Poopdoodoo, User:Poopfrenzy, User:Pooperstar, User:Poopoopeni1, User:Poopy 2007, and User:Poopydiapersinmymouth.  Not to mention a few personal attack usernames against TeckWiz and HighinBC.  What should we do about this?  My first suggestion is that any more "poop" usernames we get should be blocked from account creation: I'd like to see if that decreases the frequency.  Mangojuicetalk 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, I do get the feeling that most of these are the same 5 kids. The personal attack usernames were coming from multiple IPs though. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, will do. – Rianaऋ 18:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh man - I guess that would rule out my hopes and dreams of someday using User:Nincompoop  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: T-dot, if a legitimate name does contain "poop", it will not be blocked at all(except perhaps by mistake). By "blocked from account creation" he does not mean stopping such accounts from being made, but blocking the user so that he cannot make more accounts with the same IP. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poop 

message: Is it possible that we could switch the section headers around? HBC NameWatcher Bot keeps putting the usernames under the "Bot Reported" category. Plus, it's unlikely that we're ever going to report a bot with an inappropriate username. It would make more sense if we switched the section headers around. Cool Bluetalk to me 00:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you are talking about. The Bot Reported section is for reports made by bots, not reports about bots. —Kyриx 00:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, usernames are reported by watcher-bots (under the bot section) or users (under the user section), an inappropriately named bot wouldn't get through bot-proposals anyway. SGGH speak! 00:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, alright. Thanks for clearing that up. Cool Bluetalk to me 20:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: User:The Evil Spartan requested that I add the ability to detect extended consecutive numbers to the name watcher bot. I have added this feature and set it to disabled pending consensus here.
How many consecutive numbers should be needed before the bot reports it as potentially confusing? eg "Hello world95" good, "Hello world13246135768184351468134189618" bad, but should the line be for automated reporting? I suggest 7. (H) 21:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seven numbers seems excessive ("Hello world1324613"), but that's an arbitrary figure. What about above seven being reported as blatant, but between three and six is reported, but noted as a potential false positive? EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 3 is too low, maybe 5 and 6 as false positives and 7 or above blatant. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 6 or 7 per repeating character rule, I would say. GDonato (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make 5 low confidence. Make 6 and over regular. --R ParlateContribs@ (Red Sux!) 22:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not done by the blacklist but is hard coded, so this will not be a LOW_CONFIDENCE/blatant thing. It will just report blatant violations as a bot or a human should be doing to UAA. I am taking from this discussion that 6 is a good number, I will set it. Feel free to suggest changes for any of the control panel settings on its talk page. (H) 06:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consecutive numbers 

message: Had both a bot and user report of User:Skater ddddddddddude 18 just now, bot didn't seem to be merging it. A problem or am I just expecting it to work too fast? SGGH speak! 00:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the bot try to merge them now?  It didn't used to.  Mangojuicetalk 00:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should merge reports on the same page. The bot reported section is actually a separate page transcluded on the main one. The same thing applies at AIV, where AVB, uses a subpage transcluded on the main one. --R ParlateContribs@ (Red Sux!) 01:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh right. Fair enough then! SGGH speak! 20:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplication

message: I found this user User:Firesbh and I warned them (other people warned them too) but I don;t get how you are supose to report them on the page there it doesn't tell you how to report them so how do you report them? Scti 02:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This way   * --Dakota 02:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or if you have previously reported at WP:AIV, you may find *   easier and quicker to use. Regards  — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't know how to report names 

message: You know, I don't actually know what happens when someone is blocked, from the point of view of the person who is blocked. Does a marker just pop up when you try to edit saying you are blocked or....? SGGH speak! 17:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you want to find out?! Try blocking youself as a test. Basically, when you try and edit, it takes you to a new screen explaining that you've been blocked, gives you information on how to appeal the block and the blocking admins reasons. So if you put  as the block reason, that template is transcluded as the reason. I block my Doppel account User:Ryanpostlethwaiteontheroad to do tests on (make sure you don't autoblock yourself though!) Ryan Postlethwaite 17:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you're blocked, you see this. Sean William 17:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SGGH: if you really want to block yourself as a test, make sure to disable autoblocking, just in case.  Mangojuicetalk 21:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The blocking buttons are not toys, you should not block yourself. Just connect through Tor and you will see what it is like to be blocked. Basically you cannot edit and you see the block message. (H) 22:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I always time out when I try connecting through a rock... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOl, and meh @ not bloking yourself. I have done it a couple of times. ViridaeTalk 23:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't planning on blocking myself, because whoever comes along to answer my unbloc request will just laugh at me :P SGGH speak! 17:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Being blocked

message: The bot is reporting names that have top level domains at the end in an attempt to find urls. I am currently using every TLD, but it seems that there are so many country codes that there is a lot of false positives.
My question to you is, should I keep all TLDs or should I remove the less common ones? Of course we keep .com .net .org, what about .gov or .ca or .jp? Which should we keep, and which should we not keep? I am using this list: . (H) 20:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep all mentioned plus .uk, .au, .ie and other English-official-language countries and that should be enough for the English Wikipedia. GDonato (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also .in, have been seeing quite a few from India, which seems to be up-and-coming as a major spam source. RJASE1  Talk  21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep them all.  False positives aren't a problem, and there seem to be enough admins watching UAA.  Worst case is a false positive sits there for a few hours until someone calls it.  It's seems pretty much against the norm to have a .xxx or .xx at the end of a name so they should throw a warning. --Steve  (Stephen)  talk  22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top level domains