Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:06, 3 April 2008 view sourceRspeer (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users7,678 edits →Suggestion: remove the ban on "promotional usernames": that's not how to handle spammers← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:57, 5 January 2025 view source Secretlondon (talk \| contribs)Administrators42,216 edits →Declined and stale reports: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{pp-protected\|small=yes}}
			{{talk header\|archives=no\|search=no}}
			{{Policy-talk\|WT:U\|WT:UPOL}}
			{{collapse top\|{{-r\|Misplaced Pages Talk:Usernames for administrator attention}} and {{-r\|Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names}} now redirect here. Click "show" for archive links and other relevant information on those pages.}}
			] archives:
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]

			] archives and deletion notices:
			{{oldmfd\|date= 12 October 2007 \|result= no consensus \|votepage=Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names (3rd nomination)}}
			{{oldmfd\|date= 28 April 2007 \|result= Keep with option \|votepage= Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names (2nd nomination) }}
			{{oldmfd\|date= 4 April 2007 \|result= reform \|votepage= Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names }}

			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			{{collapse bottom}}
			<div id="talk" class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; text-align: center; padding:1em; clear: both; background-color: #F1F1DE">]</div>
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target = /Archive index
			\|mask = /Archive <#>
			\|leading_zeros = 0
			\|indexhere = yes
			}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\| algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy/Archive %(counter)d
			\|counter = 27
			\|headerlevel = 2
	\|maxarchivesize = 150K		\|maxarchivesize = 150K
			\| minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|counter = 10
			\| minthreadsleft = 2
	\|algo = old(30d)
			\|archiveheader = {{tan}}
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
			{{archives}}
	{{shortcut\|]}}
	'''Archives''': ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]

	== IP Address as Name ==

	Is there a specific policy on using ones IP address? I write anonymously by choice - and fully expect my edits to stand or fall on their own merits. Is my use of IP against the rules? I understand I forego the benefits of an account, but do I then get penalized as well? 19:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

	:You will never be required to register an account. See ] - this is one rule that will almost certainly never change. However, be aware of the following. (1) It's actually ''more'' anonymous to choose a username. Your IP address can be traced to a location by anyone, whereas if you log in you can only be traced like that by a ] if there's some reason to suspect abuse. (2) There are other IP contributors who contribute appropriately and are valued community members. But not many. You will do fine, probably, if you stick to a few articles and get involved in discussions with people there, but you'll do less well coming in as an outsider to a debate to offer a fresh opinion, especially if there's a heated debate. People are mistrustful of IPs. (3) Also keep in mind that some IP addresses are static whereas others are dynamic. If you have a dynamic IP address your IP will change every so often, which means your contributions will be scattered over many IP addresses, and it makes it very hard for users to look into your edit history. It's not forbidden, but in some ways it's much like sockpuppetry to use dynamic IPs without logging in. But like I said, you aren't required to register. ]]<sup>]</sup> 08:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Proposed policy improvement ==

	<blockquote>
	You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person, or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.
	</blockquote>

	Change to:
	<br />
	<blockquote>
	You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name<s>,</s> and you <s>either</s> are that person<s>, or you make it clear that you are not</s>. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name. Such blocked user must be notified in a courteous manner and instructed to create a new username. </blockquote>

	This proposal is prompted by a new user {{User\|LeonardoDiCaprio}} who clearly identified that she is a fan, not Mr. DiCaprio. ] (]) 20:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

	''Proposal B''
	An administrator has explained her interpretation. This interpretation would read:<br /><blockquote>
	You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person, or you make it clear that you'''r real name is the same as the well-known person but that you are a different person''' <s>are not</s>. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.
	</blockquote>

	With this new proposal, I favor Proposal B. ] (]) 20:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

	:I don't see the point in this. I removed a comma, making it
	{{quote\|You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.}}
	:The sentence specifically refers to those who share a name with a famous person. If that is unclear to some with that wording, perhaps:
	{{quote\|You should not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name. In such cases, you must either show that you are that person or make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.}} ''']''']''']''' 20:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

	This needs examples, something like:

	:''If your name is ] or ], you may use that as your username. However, you must make clear on your talk page whether or not you are the famous person known by those names.''

	This makes clear that it's about people who share names with famous people, and ''does not'' permit a fan of Leonardo DiCaprio to use that name. --] (]) 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

	:Proposal A is too restrictive, and proposal B is confusingly worded, but LaraLove's wording sounds sensible. I support the change. ] / ] 21:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

	:::I agree with ]. The modified version of Proposal B is very unambiguous, and takes care of the veil that envelopes this aspect of the username policy. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 02:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

	::I prefer the current text to Lara's version. I think Lara's version gets it wrong in the case that the user actually is the famous person (we should stop here at saying it's okay if they really are that person, and take care of the rest sensitively and carefully in private: it's bad to suggest they "prove it" when it may be totally unclear how to do so), and it also stresses this rare case too much. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::Hmm, I can see that. Yes, I could do without the "show that" part. I never particularly liked the part that blocks famous people, anyway. ] / ] 05:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
	::::I prefer the current wording as well. I don't see the point in changing it. My suggested possible change was just if some consensus had formed that the current wording was too ambiguous. As an aside, the next paragraph explains how to "show that you are the person". ''']''']''']''' 16:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
	:::: Current wording works quite well as is. ] <small>]</small> 16:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

	== Suggestion: remove the ban on "promotional usernames" ==

	The ban on promotional usernames is doing more harm than good. Recently, ] was blocked and is now undergoing an RFCN because he has a personal website with a domain name that matches his username (something which is only ''discouraged'' by this policy). Some time ago, we remember that ] was blocked, because someone found out that the letters "B G H" in the ] matched the name of a hotel in the Philippines. The "promotional" category is by far the category causing the most reports to UAA these days, often on the flimsiest of grounds. For example, a report on the username "Whiztec" is on UAA right now with the rationale "User create article Whizecargo. Assuming username stands for "Whize Technician" or similar", and people are getting reported for having names that contain portions of a rock band's name, et cetera.

	I believe this situation has gone completely overboard. Nowadays, many people have personal websites or blogs with their own domain name, and it comes as no surprise that they also choose their established Internet handle as their Misplaced Pages username. If these users don't spam Misplaced Pages with links to their site, the username is no problem at all IMO. In fact, most supporters of the promotional username ban seem to agree that a promotional username is only a problem if the user actually promotes their company by creating articles, adding links, etc. In that case, it's the actual ''promotion'' that's a problem, not the fact that their username matches or alludes to the company name. Therefore, we should focus on limiting promotional editing, instead of seeing this from a username perspective, which just causes Twinkle users to Google the user creation logs and reporting anything that seems to resemble a domain name.

	I therefore suggest that "promotional" be taken out of ]. Instead, a policy prohibiting promotional editing should be added to ]. This policy could of course contain some proviso saying that an editor's username is to be considered as part of a promotional pattern, but all blocks handed out for promotion should be recorded as user conduct blocks, not username blocks. This would also cause less confusion for the users getting blocked. If someone adds biased information about their school whose name is part of their username, it's much more helpful for them to hear that "you've been blocked for adding irrelevant links to Wildforest High School to many articles" instead of "your username Wildforestguy is offensive, disruptive, confusing, misleading or promotional". ] (]) 09:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

	:I really don't think it should be simply taken ''out.'' However, the wording now has drifted away, without any substantive discussion, from what was discussed last year (see ]). Basically, consensus was formed for a revision of the policy that included a caveat about promotional usernames -- namely, that such usernames should only be considered inappropriate when the user actually promotes the company or group (with edits, not just the username). This is much too subtle now -- "are used" to promote could mean anything, including having the username. This was done so that we don't conflate actual spammers with good-faith editors whose names are a bit companyish. I think we should go back to that. ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

	::But if the user actually has to promote a company or group for a username to be considered promotional, why is it a username issue at all then? In that case, it's the promotional editing that's the problem, not the username. ] (]) 18:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

	:I agree that ''promotion'' is a problem, and that a username is seldom ''promotional''. I'm happy for a ban of URLS as usernames; even that wouldn't have caught adznet because their username doesn't include the tld. Usernames seem to be used as something to block potential problems before they happen. It's seems odd that I could call someone a fucking cunt and get a short block, apologize, and come back, but having a username that I like and use across several websites, including my own domain, means I get blocked. ALSO usernames declaring a COI are a good thing, no? Otherwise COIs get hidden. ] 14:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

	I've sort of reconsidered this. I think that users with promotional usernames who promote something should be indef blocked, but ''not'' username blocked. These users are just obvious spammers and need to be shown the door - it is not their usernames that are a problem. There might, in theory, be users who use a username that matches a company or group where it would be good to issue a username block, but in my actual experience I haven't seen it come up. I note that on ] there are lots of examples of users who have been blocked with promotional usernames who use the {{tl\|unblock-un}} template to try to be allowed to continue editing. Generally speaking, admins aren't willing to grant that request because the problem is the promotional edits, not just the username. So it would be good if people blocked for promotional usernames would not get the {{tl\|usernameblock}} template on their talk pages. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
	:This needs to be cleared up, as the blocking of promotional usernames seems to be inconsistent with the general username policy and ]. The username policy explicitly permits using another name that is appropriate. In the ] of the ] guideline it states that user should be warned about COI editing and if they continue to edit in violation of the guideline they should be blocked. It is also inconsistent with ]. New accounts created by users who previous username was blocked as promotional are not considered sockpuppets at ]. So refusing unblocking the user to request a name change doesn't stop user from editing, as the user can simply create a new account. ] (]) 01:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

	::We need to have some standards, we can't very well let ] be running around littering the edit histories with advertising. Misplaced Pages as a whole disallows promotion, and the username policy cannot be an exception to that. ] 01:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

			== "]" listed at ] ==
	:::The username policy isn't the reason to block them, for the reason that Mangojuice says. You want to block them ''for spamming''. Username blocks say "Oh, if you have the patience to do so, you can try again under another name and we'll welcome you back", and that's ''not'' the policy we want for spammers. ] / ] 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12#Username policy}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style=white-space:nowrap;>] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">]</span></span> 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

			== AGF message for semi-"well-known" people ==
	== Changing old signature ==

			] says that editors whose username matches that of a well-known person "may" be blocked, and that verifying identity must be done "in some cases", and the standard practice seems to be not to block someone who is only marginally well-known and an unlikely target for impersonation, especially if their edits don't seem problematic.
	Hi, I changed my old username in anticipation of vanishing and I've decided to do it permanently. I'd like to change the old signatures for privacy concerns, and made a request for a bot to do it, but some people apparently object to that idea, so I was wonder if it is still acceptable for me to make the changes, or if there is some way to still get it done automatically? ] (]) 16:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

			Prompted by ] with {{u\|Just Step Sideways}} and {{u\|Secretlondon}}, I was wondering if there any consensus to include more detail on cases in which we shouldn't block, or if that would that be ]?
	:Do it by hand if it matters that much. You could also consider an automated tool like ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 08:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

			Even if we don't include extra detail here, I created {{tl\|Uw-agf-wellknown}} as an alternative to {{tl\|Uw-ublock-wellknown}}. Is there any objection to proposing this this template for inclusion in our standard list of warning templates and/or incorporating it into Twinkle? <span class="nowrap">--] (])</span> 16:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
	:How exactly does "FrozenPurpleCode" pose a privacy concern? —]→] • 09:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
			:I don't think "block first and let VRT sort it out" is the best way forward. I do agree that asking them to verify their identity is probably a good idea (regardless of ''how'' notable they are). I'm not opposed to the nicer message, especially since it is in a similar vein to {{t\|Uw-coi-username}}. ] (]) 17:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
			:The idea, for me, is that we don't want people editing their article with the authority of claiming to be the subject. Most of the COI-not-username cases are of people who are non-notable. It really doesn't matter if they are the real person or not if they are not anyone in particular. I push back against people wanting to block COI spammers as a username violation - there really is no doubt they are John Doe (rapper), and asking them to prove they are doesn't make any difference. If they become notable it is different. If John Doe is being irritating we block them for what they done (link spam etc) not pretending that we are worried they are impersonating themselves. ] (]) 17:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
			::To follow on from that - we get a lot of stage names/online handles of YouTubers. We'd never ask them to prove they are who they claim to be. These are just COI. We just don't vet randoms like this. ] (]) 17:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::Obviously if User: Mr Beast starts editing his article then we'd block as impersonation until proved otherwise. ] (]) 17:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::I think the line for blocking is/should be at "famous" as opposed to just well-known. If someone is claiming to be Beyonce, they are probably lying. ] ] 20:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Noting for the record that, {{user\|Orangemike}} went ahead and blocked the account that prompted this discussion, despite the fact that the account had made no edits since I dropped a note on their talk page about the name. ] ] 16:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Yes I saw.. ] (]) 17:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::] feels like confirmation enough for me (see the return email address) so I've unblocked. ] (]) 22:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::I don't have access to VRT but there was never really any doubt. ] (]) 08:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

			== Illegible usernames ==
	::I took it that FrozenPurpleCode is the ''changed'' username. ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::His old username isn't his real name either. —]→] • 01:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

			I recently encountered a sig which I was unable to read because of the color patterns, and left ] on their Talk page. I found nothing in the policy that seems to cover this, so it seems permissible currently. I would assume that styling one's sig, say, in white-on-white font (not the case here) would be unacceptable, but there isn't really anything about that, afaict. It seems to me we should add something to the policy about illegible signatures, but I don't think we have to enumerate all the ways someone could obscure their sig, because someone will always find some other way; it would be sufficient to have a catch-all saying that signatures styled in such a way that an editor could not easily determine the username, should be forbidden. I am not overly concerned with the case of the individual editor I messaged; my main concern is having something in the policy I can link or quote to a user when an illegible sig is at issue. ] (]) 04:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	::Ok, as long as I can do it, I guess I'll start working on using AWB then. As for my privacy concerns, I decline to give specifics in this public forum, as that would defeat the purpose of trying to secure my privacy. ] (]) 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
			:This sounds like a ] issue. ] (]) 06:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::Agreed; signature customisation is allowed until someone finds issue with it; nothing wrong with saying to someone "I can't read your sig", goodness knows I've done plenty of that over the years. ] (]) 12:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

			== Old revisions show newer reports ==
	:FrozenPurpleCube has changed his username from another obviously not real name and is now mass changing it throughout Misplaced Pages causing mass disruption to many pages. Most of the pages he/she is altering are archived pages, deletion reviews and the like but there is also a mass changing of other users comments where they reference his/her old name. All to no avail as a single look at any one of their edits will show the former username quite clearly and actually cause people to look more carefully than otherwise. ] ] 02:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

			Like say the , it is showing the reports bots made at 15 November. ] ] 05:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
	::Thank you for your concern, but I'm afraid I don't see the problem, or why it's necessary to bring it up here. Are you suggesting some other solution? If so, what? ] (]) 02:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
			:If you want old bot-reported data, you'll need to check the history of ]. ] (]) 14:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
			::Ah, so it is transcluded, ok, thanks. ] ] 14:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

			== Declined and stale reports ==
	:::I would have not bothered to change the old instances. I wasn't even interested in your old username, but I found out because a bunch of old AfDs I had on my watchlist got changed. There's no good way to remove all trace anyway. ]]<sup>]</sup> 18:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

			Should we run a bot to remove declined and stale reports from ]? Currently, HBC AIV helperbot14 only removes processed reports, so we have to manually remove declined and stale ones. I suggest removing declined reports that haven't received any comments within an hour, and stale reports with no comments in the past 24 hours. If HBC AIV helperbot14 can add this functionality, that would be great. Otherwise, I can assist with my bot. – ] <small>(])</small> 12:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	== A question ==
			:Huh, I thought that was already part of the functionality. Courtesy ping to {{u\|Mdann52}}. ] (]) 13:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			:@] Sorry on my Christmas break still!
			:I don't think this was a feature of the old bot, I'll go back and check.
			:If we're happy to add removing declined as a feature and a change in behaviour, I'll look into this.
			:I'd rather have some more discussion on how to deal with stale reports first, and when we determine this. ] (]) 00:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I think an hour is far too brief of a time. And as far as I can recall, declined reports have been being manually removed for a very long time. We don't remove them immediately as to give the reporting user time to seer why their report was declined. However I wouldn't object to automatic removal of a report that has been declined with one of the standard templates indicating as much after a period of a few hours.
			::I'm not sure what we are talking about as regards "stale" reports. Does this mean reports that have sat for a while without an admin response? ] ] 01:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I agree that an hour is far too short. ] (]) 19:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			== RFC relating to enforcement of this policy ==
	I can neither fly, nor am I an idiot. (at least I think I'm not)
	Does my username constitute misleading?
	Am I going be blocked?
	--] 22:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

			See ]. ] ] 21:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:You are going to have to reduce the size of your signature, it should not make the line taller. ] 01:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
			===Redux===
			]. ] ] 21:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:57, 5 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Username policy page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Shortcuts

Misplaced Pages Talk:Usernames for administrator attention and Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names now redirect here. Click "show" for archive links and other relevant information on those pages.

WT:UAA archives:

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names archives and deletion notices:

This page was nominated for deletion on 12 October 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This page was nominated for deletion on 28 April 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep with option.

This page was nominated for deletion on 4 April 2007. The result of the discussion was reform.

2014 Request for Comment on reforming and updating this policy

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

"Username policy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Username policy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12 § Username policy until a consensus is reached. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

AGF message for semi-"well-known" people

WP:IMPERSONATE says that editors whose username matches that of a well-known person "may" be blocked, and that verifying identity must be done "in some cases", and the standard practice seems to be not to block someone who is only marginally well-known and an unlikely target for impersonation, especially if their edits don't seem problematic.

Prompted by this discussion on UAA with Just Step Sideways and Secretlondon, I was wondering if there any consensus to include more detail on cases in which we shouldn't block, or if that would that be WP:BEANS?

Even if we don't include extra detail here, I created {{Uw-agf-wellknown}} as an alternative to {{Uw-ublock-wellknown}}. Is there any objection to proposing this this template for inclusion in our standard list of warning templates and/or incorporating it into Twinkle? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think "block first and let VRT sort it out" is the best way forward. I do agree that asking them to verify their identity is probably a good idea (regardless of how notable they are). I'm not opposed to the nicer message, especially since it is in a similar vein to {{Uw-coi-username}}. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The idea, for me, is that we don't want people editing their article with the authority of claiming to be the subject. Most of the COI-not-username cases are of people who are non-notable. It really doesn't matter if they are the real person or not if they are not anyone in particular. I push back against people wanting to block COI spammers as a username violation - there really is no doubt they are John Doe (rapper), and asking them to prove they are doesn't make any difference. If they become notable it is different. If John Doe is being irritating we block them for what they done (link spam etc) not pretending that we are worried they are impersonating themselves. Secretlondon (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

To follow on from that - we get a lot of stage names/online handles of YouTubers. We'd never ask them to prove they are who they claim to be. These are just COI. We just don't vet randoms like this. Secretlondon (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Obviously if User: Mr Beast starts editing his article then we'd block as impersonation until proved otherwise. Secretlondon (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the line for blocking is/should be at "famous" as opposed to just well-known. If someone is claiming to be Beyonce, they are probably lying. Just Step Sideways 20:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Noting for the record that, Orangemike (talk · contribs) went ahead and blocked the account that prompted this discussion, despite the fact that the account had made no edits since I dropped a note on their talk page about the name. Just Step Sideways 16:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes I saw.. Secretlondon (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

ticket:2024110610009272 feels like confirmation enough for me (see the return email address) so I've unblocked. Primefac (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't have access to VRT but there was never really any doubt. Secretlondon (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Illegible usernames

I recently encountered a sig which I was unable to read because of the color patterns, and left this message on their Talk page. I found nothing in the policy that seems to cover this, so it seems permissible currently. I would assume that styling one's sig, say, in white-on-white font (not the case here) would be unacceptable, but there isn't really anything about that, afaict. It seems to me we should add something to the policy about illegible signatures, but I don't think we have to enumerate all the ways someone could obscure their sig, because someone will always find some other way; it would be sufficient to have a catch-all saying that signatures styled in such a way that an editor could not easily determine the username, should be forbidden. I am not overly concerned with the case of the individual editor I messaged; my main concern is having something in the policy I can link or quote to a user when an illegible sig is at issue. Mathglot (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like a WP:SIGAPP issue. Nobody (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; signature customisation is allowed until someone finds issue with it; nothing wrong with saying to someone "I can't read your sig", goodness knows I've done plenty of that over the years. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Old revisions show newer reports

Like say the 8 November version, it is showing the reports bots made at 15 November. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 05:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want old bot-reported data, you'll need to check the history of Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot. Primefac (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, so it is transcluded, ok, thanks. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 14:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Declined and stale reports

Should we run a bot to remove declined and stale reports from UAA? Currently, HBC AIV helperbot14 only removes processed reports, so we have to manually remove declined and stale ones. I suggest removing declined reports that haven't received any comments within an hour, and stale reports with no comments in the past 24 hours. If HBC AIV helperbot14 can add this functionality, that would be great. Otherwise, I can assist with my bot. – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Huh, I thought that was already part of the functionality. Courtesy ping to Mdann52. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer Sorry on my Christmas break still!

I don't think this was a feature of the old bot, I'll go back and check.

If we're happy to add removing declined as a feature and a change in behaviour, I'll look into this.

I'd rather have some more discussion on how to deal with stale reports first, and when we determine this. Mdann52 (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I think an hour is far too brief of a time. And as far as I can recall, declined reports have been being manually removed for a very long time. We don't remove them immediately as to give the reporting user time to seer why their report was declined. However I wouldn't object to automatic removal of a report that has been declined with one of the standard templates indicating as much after a period of a few hours.

I'm not sure what we are talking about as regards "stale" reports. Does this mean reports that have sat for a while without an admin response? El Beeblerino 01:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that an hour is far too short. Secretlondon (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

RFC relating to enforcement of this policy

See Misplaced Pages:Username policy/ORGNAME/G11 in sandboxes RFC. El Beeblerino 21:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Redux

Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy/RFC on promotional activity. El Beeblerino 21:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)