Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:18, 5 December 2014

• WT:UAA

Misplaced Pages Help Project‑class

This page is within the scope of the Misplaced Pages Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Misplaced Pages HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Misplaced Pages Help ProjectHelp Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Simultaneous warning and reporting

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

I wholeheartedly agree. . .thank you for bringing this up. To be frank, I think the source of the issue is that people simply aren't thinking; they're switched in to a kind of autopilot functioning, throwing down templates without knowing what they actually say. It's very easy to lose a sense of accountability doing this because we don't have 'supervisors' tasked to check all of our work. That's why the best solution I can think of is to continue (respectfully & non-condescendingly) checking up on folks and communicating with them. e.g., leaving talk page messages with people who make this mistake (as you've been doing), perhaps adding a note to the orange UAA header, updating the instructions page, possibly adding a note to the username policy page, etc. While I tend to dislike user talk page templates, perhaps one could be created for this purpose. In all, a tough problem to fix, but one that does no service to newcomers. NTox · talk 20:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you make a very good point about the autopilot thing, a lot of users do not even seem to realize they are sending a mixed message. Perhaps we should ask if this could be taken off the standard installation of Twinkle? Now that I look that seems to be how it being applied most of the time. If users had to go look up the template they might <gasp> actually read it as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just made some adjustments to the edit notice for UAA that might help. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not limited to simultaneous warning and reporting. Some users go through UAA and put notices on the talk pages of users who have already been reported by others, no matter how blatant the username violation. I don't know if they're just trying to boost their edit count, or if they really think they're being helpful, but it is actually quite the opposite of being helpful. Before reporting a name, I always check the user's talk page to see if they've gotten such a notice; if they have, I do not report them. But I don't retract my report if someone subsequently issues a notice, which happens frequently. Every one of those has ended up getting blocked, so every one of those users has ended up getting the mixed message of "please discuss your username, and by the way, you're blocked because of your username". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is two problems: the "autopilot" syndrome discussed above and a disconnect between reporting users and the admins active here. To an admin it is no big deal to soft block an account for an unacceptable username, and I think that is what most UAA regulars do most of the time because it is easy, and it sends the message that the username they chose is unacceptable, maybe their edits are too, but we are nice enough to give them another chance, all they have to do is come up with an acceptable username and come on back. That decision to block does not need a consensus before before being executed, we already have the username policy to tell us what is a blatant violation. However, up until today the edit notice and the header actually told users to drop a discussion template on promo names. I don't think that was the right message and I have removed that language. The soft block is a more direct and simple way to let them know that the username they are using is not permissible, and often when the template is dropped on a page the user never replies, we don't know if they saw and picked a new name or if they just never logged in again, the report sits in the holding pen for a week, and then nothing happens. Much better to just soft block and move on. If they come back with a new name but keep spamming they will be re blocked for that soon enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's also I think slightly down to the fact that the user creation log page states the following:

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

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

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

That text is held here: MediaWiki:Newuserlogpagetext. I saw you ask at WP:VP, I searched for the first line of text of the header to find it - Happysailor 00:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Tweaked it . Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• And the nice folks at WT:TWINKLE have a fix in mind as well, a big red notice that will warn users only to use the tag if there is not a blatant violation, and to report here instead if there is. I'm anxious to see what effect this will have, I am hopeful these actions will go a long way toward mitigating this problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by the bot

• The bot found this username and remarked:-
  • • --- V4nd4l123r ... Matched: Used a attempting to skip filter: vandal -- DQB (my master / errors or issues?) 05:50, 3 February 2013
  • More informative would be:-
    • --- V4nd4l123r ... Matched: Used '4' for 'a' attempting to skip filter: vandal -- DQB (my master / errors or issues?) 05:50, 3 February 2013
      • Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My first thought is WP:BEANS. However, if you still want to bring it up, you should post on DeltaQuad's talk page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• User talk:DeltaQuad/DQB. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Pacific

• "Pacific" in usernames causes "Paki" false positives: "Matched: Used k attempting to skip filter: paki". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

ACC needs help!

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

• Identified to the Wikimedia Foundation
• In good standing with no recent blocks
• Understand and being able to apply the username policy
• Have worked with new contributors
• Have a good at dealing with a situation even while in a dispute
• The full list of requirements

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

I'm curious, what are the dominant reasons people need to request an account versus simply creating one? ~Amatulić (]) 23:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Mostly, the prospective new accounts username is similar to or exactly the same as an existing account, and follow guidelines and determine if the conflicting account is still and or ever active. The next most common reason are blocks of various nature and extremes. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I used to have ACC access and would be willing to do it again however I would need to be identified to the Wikimedia Foundation first.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 23:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dcheagle. Let us know when you're ready. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Amatulić, I might be a little out of practice here, especially where I deal mostly with CU requests, but people not being to answer captchas and collateral damage from blocks are the two primary ones I've dealt with. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I see. But Mlpearc's response is intriguing, as it suggests it is possible to usurp an account that is no longer active. Has something changed? My account name on every other project isn't 'Amatulic' but my preferred name was taken here, and it has had only 1 edit in 2002, almost 11 years ago. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

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

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

I think by "pussy" they meant the other kind of pussy that is inappropriate. - Cre81ve 22:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

fixed one of the meta links; sorry Beeblebrox Do we know how this change will interact with the prohibited usernames on the local title blacklist? Do we lose the ability to preemptively prevent some username creations? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I should think it would not affect that at all as this only effects renaming. Oh, unless a user changed their named through this process at meta and the new name was on the blacklist... Stewards have the technical ability to override just about anything, but they do not have the authority to ignore local policies, but I'm unsure if in the process of renaming a SUL account they would be informed that the new name was on a local blacklist. Might want to ask this one directly, I have already opened a thread at meta asking csome questions about how this will mesh with our local policies, this might be something to add to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

My reading of it is that the changes to unified accounts are broader in scope than simply disabling local renames (as is my question, so maybe it's not exactly on-topic here). Even if it is just that, though, I'm still concerned about this. Clearly, the WMF is pushing for a more hardline approach to SUL. But what will they do if a user creates a username on another WMF wiki that's blacklisted here but not there? My (quite possibly mistaken) understanding of the way it works now is that the software will create an separate-yet-linked account, with the same username and password, on all WMF wikis except for here, where it's blocked by the title blacklist. (Maybe it just creates it through the blacklist anyway right now, which doesn't seem like a good idea.) So, assuming that the account doesn't get created here, what happens with this new hardline approach? I see three options: the account doesn't get created here and the WMF's approach is circumvented, the account does get created here and the blacklist is circumvented, or the account doesn't get created anywhere and new accounts must pass all WMF wiki blacklists, which is ludicrous. I guess door number 1 is the best option of the three, but will that really fly? I dunno though, I can't pretend to know exactly how SUL works, so my premise might be mistaken. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure how stewards would be able to comply with the local username policies of hundreds of wikis, which may even be written in a language they can't read, or have unwritten nuances which can only be appreciated over time by working in the username area at a certain wiki. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• We should also discuss the fact that we are going to need to reword every single one of the templates we use when blocking or warning for username issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oh crap. This is not good. Agree with Beeblebrox, it will create a mess of things. Have to learn more of the ins and hows before it starts but yes, we should rethink our methods and templates. -- Alexf 17:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• I also agree with Beeblebrox on this matter. I think that this seriously doesn't look good. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have traditionally advocated for a "rename/abandon before blocking" approach as a matter of etiquette, but I should say I don't think that will be a good idea after this change. It is already admittedly complicated pushing for renames before blocking, as it requires discussion and motivating newcomers to read, understand, and follow through with the lengthy CHU process. Not the mention all of the follow-up on our part to make sure these users actually do the renames when UAA/HP and CAT:UAA are understaffed as it is. To have the rename process on an entirely different wiki, and to have it run by people naturally unfamiliar with our username policy, seems like a very bad idea. For this reason I am inclined to agree with Beeblebrox that we employ a "soft block and create a new account" approach. Perhaps we can still give such users the option to rename their account at Meta in the blocking template, but again I'm not apt to say renaming alone should be the norm. NTox · talk 21:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I suspect the Stewards will permit local admins to communicate requests to Meta to save users from having to learn complex templates (something we never mastered with WP:CHU). I also suspect the WMF won't care if en.wiki continues to use the blacklist and local blocks to enforce its username policy, even if the users are in compliance with the more lax SUL policy. MBisanz 01:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• For the username-related templates, we should definitely produce ready-to-deploy drafts right now so that we can get them up and running immediately when the changes kick in. I've thought about the issue of stewards not understanding local policy, so how about this: We still keep WP:CHU. Users themselves are not allowed to post directly to the stewards queue; rather, they make requests at CHU. Trusted users approve requests and then send them off to the stewards, who just have to blindly flip a switch since the work has been done already. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that we should change the templates immediately. People who get a template on a talk page today might not see them until after the change. As a temporary measure, link to both pages (this page and Meta). Once renaming has been moved to Meta, link to Meta only. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of creating a temporary sandbox to work on these new templates/change of existing template wording, to be ready for the change, at Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention/End of CHU. We can move it to a better location or name if this is not a suitable one. Time is rather short so lets get moving. -- Alexf 11:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Is there any way we can ask for a slight extension? It'll be tough to fix everything pertinent by then. We may have to just resort to manual responses, which isn't that big of a deal. ceranthor 01:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Because this is coming from the foundation it isn't really subject to consensus, but if enough of the bigger projects asked for an extension we might get one. I'm curious if this is creating similar issues for the Germans, as they are another very big WP with an active admin corps, but I don't know a thing about their naming policies, it might not be as big a deal for them. I'm also curious if the stewards are really up for this. MBisanz has commented that he and some other en crats who are also stewards will try to keep things under control, but their numbers are limited. I'd be inclined to ask for a special election for new stewards to handle the workload if I thought that would actually work.

Or maybe it would, if we could convince the foundation and the community that this is going to create a burden the current stewards weren't prepared for. We could ask for specialist stewards, the same as we have on occaison had specialist admins. These stewards would deal with rename requests from projects whose renaming policies they were familiar with, and nothing else, steward-wise. However, even getting support for implementing that would take longer than three weeks, so I suspect for the moment we will have to just muddle through as best we can.

I think as far as templates go, we can't make the needed changes yet because we don't actually know what to tell them other than "if you want to change your username you will have to go to meta and ask somewhere, we aren't real sure how that works yet." At least that's the impression I am getting over at meta, Although there has been some research into the different site policies and some discussion about formulating some sort of global username policy, there is as of now no specificity on how this new process will work that I can find. I don't want to bash meta (since I've already done that so many times) but realistically the community there, other than the stewards themselves, is somewhat dysfunctional. It seems to take months, if not years to get almost anything done there. Much as they might come to resent it, I think it would be best if users from the individual sites (especially the big ones that are going to generate most of the traffic for the new process) to make sure we are strongly represented and this new process and policy is not dictated soleely by the stewards and the regulars at meta. That is not likely to end well for anyone. I think the best approach would be to try and leave as much control at the local level as possible, i.e. continuing to require users to submit an unblock request here if they are blocked for their username. If the new one is not a violation of our policy we unblock them so they can file at METACHU or whatever we end up calling it. So we should push for a hands-off approach, not an actual comprehensive policy for all WMF sites. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If the user has SUL, then the user can request renaming at METACHU even if the user is blocked on this project, as Meta blocks are separate to Misplaced Pages blocks. The user would have to additionally be blocked on Meta in order to be prevented from requesting renaming there. Problem: Will Misplaced Pages be informed if a user who was blocked for his username requests renaming at Meta, so that the user can be unblocked again? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, now that we are to achieve full unification, either a username is acceptable everywhere, or it is acceptable nowhere. So we should not be blocking for username-related reasons on the English Misplaced Pages at all, but instead blocking globally on meta. If the current stewards cannot handle the load, maybe we could call a special election. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How would you define such a policy? For example, we might not like obscene user names like "pornography". Problem: The Swedish word for "pornography" (sv:Porr) is a surname in German (see e.g. de:Arthur Porr). I would say that it's fine to use your own surname as user name. There are probably lots of similar clashes where a word is unsuitable in one language but perfectly fine in another language. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The current proposal for a universal policy actually says that they won't rename anyone who is blocked anywhere, but I kind of doubt that provision will stick around. I also very strongly disagree with the notion that we should give up local control of our username policy and count on a small group at meta to handle it for us. SUL is not intended to be the end of local username policies, just a simplified way of moving between WMF sites. And, I don't think our local community would support letting go of WP:ORGNAME, which is not at all universal. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course any portion of a real name should always be acceptable no matter how embarrassing or offensive it is in another language. What I was saying was that we should lean on the side of being more permissive, not globally or locally block people called "Porr." I would make this suggestion: If a user whose native wiki is not the English Misplaced Pages has a username that could possibly violate our username policy, but is not a blatant violation that could not possibly be interpreted any other way, we should consult speakers of that language to determine if the username has a legitimate meaning. Just recently I had to deal with a user called KikeFolan; he was initially blocked, and I unblocked him when I realized "Kike" is a Spanish first name.

Regarding WP:ORGNAME, yes, that is an exception to universal acceptability, I suppose. However, if an organization created an eponymous account for donating pictures to Commons, I would not mind if it made edits on the English Misplaced Pages solely pertaining to how the pictures might be integrated into articles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have just updated all of the soft username block templates in a before/after format at End of CHU/Soft block templates. The 'afters' are simplified and have a slightly more uniform style. Take a look when you can, and feel free to make any changes or comments. NTox · talk 00:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

  What do you think is the best action for hard username blocks? We could tell them to create a new account but make sure to respect our policies from now on, or we could require them to go through an unblock process and then request on meta. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

  Hard username blocks. Unblock request first, though that will seldom be granted due to the reasons for a hard block (usually vile or nasty name). -- Alexf 21:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

  Obviously offensive names like the ones you describe are now a rare commodity; what I'm thinking about is more like a promotional username with promotional edits. Should we tell them, "go ahead and create a new account whose name is unrelated to your organization, and don't edit about your organization again" or have them request unblocking and ask on meta? (The latter is more similar to the current system, but I'm worried it may overburden the stewards.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. I was thinking of hard username blocks as nasty ones. What you are talking about is more the likes of spamublock then? I would tell them to create a new one after reading the username rules. Problem is, many create another unacceptable variation and back to square one we go. I still prefer the current system. If stewards are overburdened then we might need more stewards, or as somebody suggested a special quasi-steward helper group. What I'm saying is spamublock is serious and they should request an unblock first as we do now, then we send them to wherever the new request has to be posted (e.g. the replacement for CHU). -- Alexf 10:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Reprieve

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

Hitler as a possible false positive

• I found a Turkish word that contains 'hitler' as a substring: tehitler meaning "martyrs". (-ler is a Turkish plural suffix.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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

To discuss or not to discuss?

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

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

Shared use accounts

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

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

It's actually quite rare to see a username implying shared use which does not also fall under promotional. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I had in mind things like school classes, organisational posts ("Secretary of" etc), etc. If it's not needed then that's OK, I was just wondering. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a good thought, but I would be opposed to adding that category. As said, most names that imply shared use are also promotional. When they are not, the sharing implication alone does not often warrant a block. Instead it's advised that you figure out whether the user is actually sharing and raise the issue at ANI if necessary. When they're not sharing, the best course is usually a username change or leaving it be. Further, names of the "Secretary of" variety usually qualify as promotional. If anything, we might consider adding an "Other" category, or possibly a "Confusing" category, but even those may be unnecessary too. NTox · talk 18:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Helperbots

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

User:DeltaQuadBot

• What has happened to User:DeltaQuadBot? It suddenly stopped on 23 July 2013 and has not run since: see Special:Contributions/DeltaQuadBot and https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Usernames_for_administrator_attention/Bot&action=history . Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention#User-reported currently contains a user-reported "is gay" username User:Hillbillyisgay which DeltaQuadBot should have picked up. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• See Special:Contributions/DeltaQuadBot. User:DeltaQuadBot has not worked on Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot since 01:13, 14 December 2013‎. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Issue on editing the full coat of arms of Keele University

Keele University

I have been adding the university's full coat of arms to the page as this is an common action that can be seen on other university pages. Although Keele University seldom uses her full coat of arms, I believe it is important to include this to show the background and history of the university.

However, User:Cj1340 has constantly reverted the changes I have made and giving lots of invalid reasons to delete my changes. I have no idea why this user is so against the idea of putting the full coat of arms on the page. Previously, he has been making false statement to explain his action, as he explained the full coat of arms I added is the Sneyd Family's arm, and I have explained to him on his talk page the differences between the Sneyd Family's arms and the Keele's arms. User_talk:Cj1340

After noticing User:Cj1340 the correct Keele's arms, my edits were still deleted by him. The reason he used to reverted my edit vary, including "the coat of arms image is duplicate with another picture captured the university's arms outside the library" and "the image of quality is poor".

I believe the reason made by User:Cj1340 is invalid and it is annoying to keep changing the page without a reasonable explanation.

Wymanb (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Reasons for blocking

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention archives?

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

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

Question

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

I think so, per WP:REALNAME. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Matty.007 19:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Username policy/RFC is open

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

user talk page messing with WP code

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

I do not have any idea what this user is talking about. I have definitely reverted some vandal edits by this user. Hitro talk 20:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps referring to the placement of Image:Bouncywikilogo.gif? Dwpaul 17:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Bindingness of decisions

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

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

Self-derogatory usernames?

• What is current opinion about self-derogatory usernames? Currently listed is a queried username Crapaudbaveux, which is French for "toad-slimy". For example, in Renderosity there is, or for a long time was, an active user who gave himself the username "Sewer Rat", and he did no harm that I know of. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no official rule on it; administrators tend to interpret these in terms of how "offensive" or "disruptive" they are likely to be to other editors. There is a level of self-derogatoriness that is generally upsetting, and another that is not. I for one would be okay with "Sewer Rat" but not with something like "I Deserve to Kill Myself". NTox · talk 22:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Pizza

• Anybody have any idea why "pizza" usernames are consistently reported by the bot? Pizza is already listed in the whitelist. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a test for names similar to piss? Dwpaul 23:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but why isn't the whitelist working? It should be reporting "pizz" usernames while ignoring "pizza" usernames, if I understand the purpose of the whitelist correctly. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Two examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Usernames_for_administrator_attention/Bot&oldid=598611871 caught as "piss" were Pizzasquared and Pizzapie1998, where "pizza" is part of a longer word. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Frack

• A username "Fracking Stupid" was caught as "stupid". if this sort of attempt becomes a tendency, "frack" could be put on the blacklist as a veiled form of "fuck". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Has the bot stopped again?

• This list has had no new entries since 15:10, 17 March 2014‎. Has the bot stopped again? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

DQ Bot

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

LapBot

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

Draft namespace articles

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

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

Russian trolling

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

DQB bot

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

(Minor thing but wouldn't that be DeltaQuadBot bot?) tutterMouse (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

We're long time friends :P so it's cool Mlpearc (open channel) 22:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• The bot User:DeltaQuadBot seems to have again stopped running. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A bug in edit messages

• I made these 2 edits to page Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot. In both, something added "Bot-reported: " to the start of my edit comment, although I am not a bot. (I am an admin.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It is the heading name. Heading names are autoincluded in edit summaries. Chillum 05:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe reporting instead at Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention#User-reported will give better results? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Username issue or not?

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

Gringoladomenega instigating an edit war

Could an admin please investigate the intent and purpose of Gringoladomenega. I made an issue last week about him purposefully following me around on WP deliberately making unnecessary and pointless reverts and edits to my contributions without explaining why, and today, after a period of being away he is, within seconds/minutes instigating an edit war despite previous being warned. Thanks. Panhead2014 (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Who just got out of a lock and returned already doing the same wars edition was mr. Panhead2014. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Panhead2014

Gringoladomenega (talk) 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense, much like you persistence in following me around and ruin the contributions I make to improve articles on WP. Panhead2014 (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• This board is for problems with the username itself. For general issues of user conduct, head over to WP:AN/I. For Edit warring, WP:ANEW. Monty₈₄₅ 13:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

iOS App Account Creation

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

DiasMi012

I think the adminstration needs to montior User: DiasMi012". This user is trying to start an edit war and is not respecting other people's work/edits at all. [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Los_Angeles_Metro_bus_fleet&action=history

I have told him there was no reason to delete "3" from Division list because the New Flyer C40HFS were retired and I listed the Divisions these buses used to be assigned to but this used decides to ignore what I say and reverts my edit I made. i had to tell in in the talk page about this, but this user still is NOT respecting on what I said about the edita he made, I'm getting frustraded with this user and I think action needs to be taken against this user. This user for a long time has been problematic towards other editors and now towards me.

This board is for problems with the username itself. For general issues of user conduct, head over to WP:AN/I. For Edit warring, WP:ANEW. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Strangely similar usernames

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

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

_Fortuna 11:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Those aren't usernames, they're IPv6 addresses. The users making those edits are not logged in. rspεεr (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Indeed. For more information, see WP:IPv6, esp. the Advisory. It Is Me Here 11:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Fuhrer

• The substring "fuhrer" in a username causes a remark like this:-

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

   Clerk note: There is low confidence in this filter test, please be careful in blocking. -- DQB (my master / errors or issues?) 21:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  Matched: This bot does not support the encoding in this username or filter. Please consider reporting this to my master. Tripped on: f(u|ü|ue)hrer -- DQB ::(my master / errors or issues?) 21:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• The confidence is not low here :: "fuhrer" has one main meaning to most people, and unlike e.g. "piss" and "cock" it cannot easily arise accidentally. "This bot does not support the encoding in this username or filter. Please consider reporting this to my master." seems to show a coding fault somewhere. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I think it just means it can't read "führer" because of the umlaut, but "fuhrer" with no umlaut will still be captured. —Soap— 04:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Bot down

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

Bot error

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

Double entendre?

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

• Maybe. That alone is not a reason to block. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't think so, but would you allow an account named User:Penis Dickhead? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Probably not. Penis von Lesbian, that's another matter. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Okay; that's funny! Rationalobserver (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Rationalobserver: Some observations of the user's user page may quell your concerns. --j⚛e decker 19:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ahh, I see that now; thanks. I once knew a guy name Peter Dix, so I guess I should have been more open-minded. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

• Project-Class Help pages
• NA-importance Help pages
• Misplaced Pages Help Project pages