![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Why is it blacklisted? Boxhead259 ( talk) 03:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there a formal process to apply to be a non-bot clerk? Phearson ( talk) 04:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
When choosing a username, are individuals officially representing a notable person allowed to edit under the subject's username? For example, if I was an artist (let's call me "Ima Vixen") and I had asked my personal assistant to perform all of the edits on my behalf, could the assistant register the username "Ima Vixen" assuming it was confirmed via OTRS? Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Do we have any standing Holding Pen rules? How about timelines? I usually work UAA but seldom HP. Seeing the messages about backlogs I'll try to help here too, but as I do not want to trample on other admins/clerks working the case, when there is a note about somebody "discussing with user", should we block marginal (bad) names after a week or so? Should we clear (remove) the listing for marginal (maybe ok) names after a week or so? What should be the wait on "wait until the user edits"? If we don't set some rules and max or common wait time (if we already have them, I've missed them), then how do we know when it is ok to either block or remove from the list? I'd say if a username is in enough doubt to be in the holding pen, 7 or maybe 10 days should be plenty of time to make a hard decision and clear it one way or another. Else they sit here forever. I am open to suggestions, or a pointer to where this has been discussed before. Thanks. -- Alexf (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I am a member of the Welcoming Committee and I noticed User:Mobile golden number and they seem to be promotional of a company. I couldn't figure out where to put this so I figured it was safe idea to put it here verus mess up some format something I don't understand. :) Could someone check it out? Thanx! ReelAngelGirl ( talk) 14:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I use Twinkle to add entries to WP:UAA, but it adds new entries to the top of the user reported section - I thought the general consensus was to add new entries to lists at the bottom, in the same style that Helperbot adds its new entries to the bottom of the bot reported section? Do users who don't use Twinkle for reporting add new entries to the top or bottom of this list? Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 00:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if it is possible to add "noob" to the blacklist. I am suggesting this, as it is a derogatory term for "newbie" and has been used in some disruptive usernames. It is not exactly a violation in itself, but there are many others that has many false positives yet are in the blacklist as well. Johnny Au ( talk/ contributions) 00:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder to people in general to be careful not to change ore remove the header for this page or the sub-page, as it prevents the helper bots from working. Thanks. An optimist on the run! 22:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
In the past I have advocated taking a very hard line with spammers, but over time I have come to see a downside to this practice. The way most of us have tradtitionally handled a user who created an account with a company or group name and then proceeded to write about said company or group is to hardblock them and give them the long {{ uw-spamublock}} block notice. If all you ever do is block users this seems like a good way to proceed, but if you also work with unblock requests the problem becomes apparent: Such blocks are very often appealed, and it almost always goes something like this: "I was just trying to add factual information about this company. I didn't know about the rules for usernames. Please unblock me. Here is some other non-infringing name I've thought up." And then a reviewing admin will come by and slap the {{ coiq}} template down and/or pepper them with questions about what they would do if they were unblocked. Eventually the user either makes various promises to behave or gives up entirely. This scenario plays out multiple times every single day. Keep an eye on Category:Requests for unblock for a day or two and you will see just how often. I have developed a different, simpler approach recently that I believe works better.
In this way the message is sent that they absolutely cannot use a group name, and they are advised of the policy on conflicts of interest. No muss, no fuss, no need to tie up admins in order to end up in exactly the same place, and there is even the chance that they will become productive contributors. If they return to spamming, they can be blocked again easily enough. This approach saves time and is less bitey. I know, who cares if we bite spammers, right? Over time I have come to realize that the majority of spammers are really just like any other new users, they just don't know how this works and they think they can just add anything they want. Once you explain to them that this isn't the case they usually stop. The soft blocked demonstrates that we take the issue seriously but allowing them to create a new account and try editing again, this time having been informed of WP:COI, shows them that if they can learn to work within some fairly simple boundaries they can still contribute. I'm not suggesting this approach be made an official policy or anything, just thought it was worth mentioning to the UAA regulars as a way to be friendlier and reduce the workload on unblock reviewers. Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to say that actually there are some username like Chuto, Chodaboy57 and Chodaboy69000 which contain the word chud, chut, choda, chota, chudo, chudo which stands for fuck in English. All these are Hindi words written in English and I wanted to add them to the blacklist.-- Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 16:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm a fairly common contributor here recently, but it gets frustrating when virtually identical reports get different results based on what admin happens to come by. Some examples from the last few days:
{{
uaa|ci}}
What's different about the last one? I have no idea; my best guess is that different admins have different ideas of what constitutes a username that requires administrator attention. The instructions say this is the right place when:
Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is generally not permitted, and users who adopt such a username may be blocked if their editing behavior appears to be promotional.
I see two problems here:
Can we get some more detailed guidelines, either for reporters or for admins? Thanks! Dori ☾ Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. Following a village pump proposal discussion I implemented a new tool Followed users which lets you view the most recent edit by a selected list of users that you follow. One important application of this raised by User:Danger is to follow abandoned accounts with bad usernames (e.g. corporate/institutional accounts) to make sure they stay abandoned. I'd like to get more people to try it out and let me know at my talk page if you find it useful or have suggestions/problems. Thanks! Dcoetzee 02:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as we seem to get an awful lot of COI stuff here people might be interested in the following RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI. Secretlondon ( talk) 00:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is vote unacceptable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.148.197 ( talk) 08:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is it on the blacklist. 122.49.160.125 ( talk) 08:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Most of the username policy focuses on commercial promotion. Would having a title like admin qualify? Such as this user admin182 ( talk · contribs) -- MacAddct1984 ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
An IP editor recently reported a possible violation of the username policy to User:Headbomb on his talk page. Headbomb suggested that the IP report it but IMO the reporting process is less than easy to follow for a new editor. So I am reporting it here for action if appropriate. The edit can be seen here with the username visible. Its probably not an issue though since its a one time edit with no user page or talk page. 71.163.243.232 ( talk) 16:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see:
Template talk:Non-administrator observation#What to do with this template. Thanks,
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
20:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Note: Moved from UAA page for further discussion on how/when to require recent edits and whether or not blatantly obvious corpnames should be blocked prior to first edit. 7 05:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
If staleness isn' relevant for usernames, why is there an option for it in the template arguments? Daniel Case ( talk) 14:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I just came across a new contributor (unable to parse) ( talk · contribs). Does that fall into the scope of "confusing" in the username policy? - Pointillist ( talk) 11:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
A couple of days ago User:Nyttend protected the bot page so that only confirmed editors can edit it. This would mean that if your username is listed here it's very likely that you wouldn't be able to defend yourself. It's also not been attacked by anyone or done anything to indicate that it needed to be protected. This was done without any discussion as far as I can see. I propose that we unprotect it. Any thoughts? Secretlondon ( talk) 11:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to cross link to my comment on WP:AN and ask editors and admin who frequent UAA to provide their input to policy changes ongoing at WP:ROLE and WT:U. 7 00:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
So following all the drama on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Orange_Mike and the correct claims that practice here doesn't follow policy - what should we do with all these COI ones? We just seem to be letting them build up. Should we be sticking them in the holding pen? Secretlondon ( talk) 13:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I know I'm constantly moaning about how UAA is basically a game of whack a mole, but seriously, look at that backlog and how few of the names on it are really blatant violations.
Also I'm just not sure if those apparent role accounts like Hmdcjpj ( talk · contribs) (for "Hashmat Medical & Dental College JPJ") which just look like strings of nonsense when you don't know the context should be instablocked. Only ones which are blatantly promotional or blatantly role accounts upon first sight. Does WP:RFCN not still exist? - filelake shoe 13:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
UAA seems to get alot of traffic from people reporting accounts editing promotionally. I hate to nitpick about this, but this noticeboard I've always understood to be for username violations. If an account is editing promotionally but the username itself is not promotional I've always understood that the report should go to WP:AIV (with the exception of usernames that appear to be company/group/organization names, which can go to either). Do I have this right, or is UAA actually the place for reporting promotion-only accounts? Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 19:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Some admins are being far too harsh instablocking people here. Recently blocked User:Uncommon Grace signed up with a title of something they'd created as their username. My username is also the title of something I've created. The fact that they were trying to promote it with their first edit and I wasn't should not be the deciding factor on whether this is an inappropriate username, and I really don't think that's a good reason to instantly block someone (hardblock, I might add) after one edit. We normally don't block vandals who insert "penis" into articles until they've done it five times.
Rather than another vain attempt at reminding people about WP:AGF and how this kind of slap happy blocking damages Wikipedia, I suggest we change the text of UAA so that it no longer claims to be "only for blatant violations of the username policy". What UAA actually is now is conflict of interest and spam noticeboard II where twinklers can report any spam/COI account with a slight resemblence to whatever they're promoting in the username, and rather than acting with restraint and giving warnings and so on, admins are allowed to just instantly indefinitely hardblock users for one edit. Very few of the accounts blocked here are actually blocked because of their username.
I feel like I wasted my time today working on the backlog here and judging each report according to whether it was a blatant violation of username policy. I also think, as with CSD, when one admin disagrees that a name is a blatant violation, a second admin should not then be able to just block the user. - filelake shoe 23:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I apologise for adding email address usernames, as I thought usernames weren't allowed to contain email addresses-- Mjs1991 ( talk) 02:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
But then again looking at Username policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy/Archive_15#E-mail_addresses it mentions they are not allowed-- Mjs1991 ( talk) 02:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I was looking at the creation log of 2010-2011, and there is a fair amount of unreported usernames with either promotional material in the name or on their page, and usernames with swearing in it. However, I was just wondering if usernames which are that old can be reported or not?-- Mjs1991 ( talk) 13:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
There's been a suggestion to rename Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over to Category:Wikipedian usernames over which editors have expressed concern per the better grammar involved. I wouldn't mind the move - though I do know that a wider discussion may be warranted. I've started a CFD here about it. Avic ennasis @ 04:36, 12 Sivan 5772 / 04:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I recently noticed that a user with an exceptionally offensive username had been indefinitrly blocked as a vandalism-only account. I reported the username to this board for attention, but my report was removed by a bot since the account was already blocked. Is there any procedure for reporting offensive names if the account is already blocked? RolandR ( talk) 00:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone have an objection if I do some clerking here and at WP:UAA/HP. I'm only planning to do the following at this stage:
Regards, Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Watchubot_block_review may be of interest re: the blocking of names ending in -bot. Secretlondon ( talk) 01:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about the manner in which promotional usernames should be blocked. Please participate at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC - Handling promotional usernames to help reach a consensus. NTox · talk 02:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Admins should kindly take a look from time to time at the usernames listed at CAT:UAA. Electric Catfish 23:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I have found that I am very regularly edit conflicting with the bot here. If I decide not to block the user but to warn them, I will typically give the warning, then go back to UAA to put the discussion with user template on the request. However, the bot, seeing my warning, will post its helpful 'possible username issue' note. I will often conflict with the bot; it's posted its note telling me that there might be an issue, which it has only done because I warned the user - once or twice is fine, but it happens almost every time I choose to warn a user. Is there a way to avoid this? Or could the bot operate slightly differently? ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 22:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Why is it blacklisted? Boxhead259 ( talk) 03:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there a formal process to apply to be a non-bot clerk? Phearson ( talk) 04:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
When choosing a username, are individuals officially representing a notable person allowed to edit under the subject's username? For example, if I was an artist (let's call me "Ima Vixen") and I had asked my personal assistant to perform all of the edits on my behalf, could the assistant register the username "Ima Vixen" assuming it was confirmed via OTRS? Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Do we have any standing Holding Pen rules? How about timelines? I usually work UAA but seldom HP. Seeing the messages about backlogs I'll try to help here too, but as I do not want to trample on other admins/clerks working the case, when there is a note about somebody "discussing with user", should we block marginal (bad) names after a week or so? Should we clear (remove) the listing for marginal (maybe ok) names after a week or so? What should be the wait on "wait until the user edits"? If we don't set some rules and max or common wait time (if we already have them, I've missed them), then how do we know when it is ok to either block or remove from the list? I'd say if a username is in enough doubt to be in the holding pen, 7 or maybe 10 days should be plenty of time to make a hard decision and clear it one way or another. Else they sit here forever. I am open to suggestions, or a pointer to where this has been discussed before. Thanks. -- Alexf (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I am a member of the Welcoming Committee and I noticed User:Mobile golden number and they seem to be promotional of a company. I couldn't figure out where to put this so I figured it was safe idea to put it here verus mess up some format something I don't understand. :) Could someone check it out? Thanx! ReelAngelGirl ( talk) 14:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I use Twinkle to add entries to WP:UAA, but it adds new entries to the top of the user reported section - I thought the general consensus was to add new entries to lists at the bottom, in the same style that Helperbot adds its new entries to the bottom of the bot reported section? Do users who don't use Twinkle for reporting add new entries to the top or bottom of this list? Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 00:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if it is possible to add "noob" to the blacklist. I am suggesting this, as it is a derogatory term for "newbie" and has been used in some disruptive usernames. It is not exactly a violation in itself, but there are many others that has many false positives yet are in the blacklist as well. Johnny Au ( talk/ contributions) 00:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder to people in general to be careful not to change ore remove the header for this page or the sub-page, as it prevents the helper bots from working. Thanks. An optimist on the run! 22:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
In the past I have advocated taking a very hard line with spammers, but over time I have come to see a downside to this practice. The way most of us have tradtitionally handled a user who created an account with a company or group name and then proceeded to write about said company or group is to hardblock them and give them the long {{ uw-spamublock}} block notice. If all you ever do is block users this seems like a good way to proceed, but if you also work with unblock requests the problem becomes apparent: Such blocks are very often appealed, and it almost always goes something like this: "I was just trying to add factual information about this company. I didn't know about the rules for usernames. Please unblock me. Here is some other non-infringing name I've thought up." And then a reviewing admin will come by and slap the {{ coiq}} template down and/or pepper them with questions about what they would do if they were unblocked. Eventually the user either makes various promises to behave or gives up entirely. This scenario plays out multiple times every single day. Keep an eye on Category:Requests for unblock for a day or two and you will see just how often. I have developed a different, simpler approach recently that I believe works better.
In this way the message is sent that they absolutely cannot use a group name, and they are advised of the policy on conflicts of interest. No muss, no fuss, no need to tie up admins in order to end up in exactly the same place, and there is even the chance that they will become productive contributors. If they return to spamming, they can be blocked again easily enough. This approach saves time and is less bitey. I know, who cares if we bite spammers, right? Over time I have come to realize that the majority of spammers are really just like any other new users, they just don't know how this works and they think they can just add anything they want. Once you explain to them that this isn't the case they usually stop. The soft blocked demonstrates that we take the issue seriously but allowing them to create a new account and try editing again, this time having been informed of WP:COI, shows them that if they can learn to work within some fairly simple boundaries they can still contribute. I'm not suggesting this approach be made an official policy or anything, just thought it was worth mentioning to the UAA regulars as a way to be friendlier and reduce the workload on unblock reviewers. Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to say that actually there are some username like Chuto, Chodaboy57 and Chodaboy69000 which contain the word chud, chut, choda, chota, chudo, chudo which stands for fuck in English. All these are Hindi words written in English and I wanted to add them to the blacklist.-- Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 16:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm a fairly common contributor here recently, but it gets frustrating when virtually identical reports get different results based on what admin happens to come by. Some examples from the last few days:
{{
uaa|ci}}
What's different about the last one? I have no idea; my best guess is that different admins have different ideas of what constitutes a username that requires administrator attention. The instructions say this is the right place when:
Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is generally not permitted, and users who adopt such a username may be blocked if their editing behavior appears to be promotional.
I see two problems here:
Can we get some more detailed guidelines, either for reporters or for admins? Thanks! Dori ☾ Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi all. Following a village pump proposal discussion I implemented a new tool Followed users which lets you view the most recent edit by a selected list of users that you follow. One important application of this raised by User:Danger is to follow abandoned accounts with bad usernames (e.g. corporate/institutional accounts) to make sure they stay abandoned. I'd like to get more people to try it out and let me know at my talk page if you find it useful or have suggestions/problems. Thanks! Dcoetzee 02:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as we seem to get an awful lot of COI stuff here people might be interested in the following RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI. Secretlondon ( talk) 00:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is vote unacceptable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.148.197 ( talk) 08:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is it on the blacklist. 122.49.160.125 ( talk) 08:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Most of the username policy focuses on commercial promotion. Would having a title like admin qualify? Such as this user admin182 ( talk · contribs) -- MacAddct1984 ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
An IP editor recently reported a possible violation of the username policy to User:Headbomb on his talk page. Headbomb suggested that the IP report it but IMO the reporting process is less than easy to follow for a new editor. So I am reporting it here for action if appropriate. The edit can be seen here with the username visible. Its probably not an issue though since its a one time edit with no user page or talk page. 71.163.243.232 ( talk) 16:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see:
Template talk:Non-administrator observation#What to do with this template. Thanks,
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
20:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Note: Moved from UAA page for further discussion on how/when to require recent edits and whether or not blatantly obvious corpnames should be blocked prior to first edit. 7 05:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
If staleness isn' relevant for usernames, why is there an option for it in the template arguments? Daniel Case ( talk) 14:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I just came across a new contributor (unable to parse) ( talk · contribs). Does that fall into the scope of "confusing" in the username policy? - Pointillist ( talk) 11:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
A couple of days ago User:Nyttend protected the bot page so that only confirmed editors can edit it. This would mean that if your username is listed here it's very likely that you wouldn't be able to defend yourself. It's also not been attacked by anyone or done anything to indicate that it needed to be protected. This was done without any discussion as far as I can see. I propose that we unprotect it. Any thoughts? Secretlondon ( talk) 11:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to cross link to my comment on WP:AN and ask editors and admin who frequent UAA to provide their input to policy changes ongoing at WP:ROLE and WT:U. 7 00:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
So following all the drama on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Orange_Mike and the correct claims that practice here doesn't follow policy - what should we do with all these COI ones? We just seem to be letting them build up. Should we be sticking them in the holding pen? Secretlondon ( talk) 13:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I know I'm constantly moaning about how UAA is basically a game of whack a mole, but seriously, look at that backlog and how few of the names on it are really blatant violations.
Also I'm just not sure if those apparent role accounts like Hmdcjpj ( talk · contribs) (for "Hashmat Medical & Dental College JPJ") which just look like strings of nonsense when you don't know the context should be instablocked. Only ones which are blatantly promotional or blatantly role accounts upon first sight. Does WP:RFCN not still exist? - filelake shoe 13:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
UAA seems to get alot of traffic from people reporting accounts editing promotionally. I hate to nitpick about this, but this noticeboard I've always understood to be for username violations. If an account is editing promotionally but the username itself is not promotional I've always understood that the report should go to WP:AIV (with the exception of usernames that appear to be company/group/organization names, which can go to either). Do I have this right, or is UAA actually the place for reporting promotion-only accounts? Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 19:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Some admins are being far too harsh instablocking people here. Recently blocked User:Uncommon Grace signed up with a title of something they'd created as their username. My username is also the title of something I've created. The fact that they were trying to promote it with their first edit and I wasn't should not be the deciding factor on whether this is an inappropriate username, and I really don't think that's a good reason to instantly block someone (hardblock, I might add) after one edit. We normally don't block vandals who insert "penis" into articles until they've done it five times.
Rather than another vain attempt at reminding people about WP:AGF and how this kind of slap happy blocking damages Wikipedia, I suggest we change the text of UAA so that it no longer claims to be "only for blatant violations of the username policy". What UAA actually is now is conflict of interest and spam noticeboard II where twinklers can report any spam/COI account with a slight resemblence to whatever they're promoting in the username, and rather than acting with restraint and giving warnings and so on, admins are allowed to just instantly indefinitely hardblock users for one edit. Very few of the accounts blocked here are actually blocked because of their username.
I feel like I wasted my time today working on the backlog here and judging each report according to whether it was a blatant violation of username policy. I also think, as with CSD, when one admin disagrees that a name is a blatant violation, a second admin should not then be able to just block the user. - filelake shoe 23:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I apologise for adding email address usernames, as I thought usernames weren't allowed to contain email addresses-- Mjs1991 ( talk) 02:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
But then again looking at Username policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy/Archive_15#E-mail_addresses it mentions they are not allowed-- Mjs1991 ( talk) 02:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I was looking at the creation log of 2010-2011, and there is a fair amount of unreported usernames with either promotional material in the name or on their page, and usernames with swearing in it. However, I was just wondering if usernames which are that old can be reported or not?-- Mjs1991 ( talk) 13:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
There's been a suggestion to rename Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over to Category:Wikipedian usernames over which editors have expressed concern per the better grammar involved. I wouldn't mind the move - though I do know that a wider discussion may be warranted. I've started a CFD here about it. Avic ennasis @ 04:36, 12 Sivan 5772 / 04:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I recently noticed that a user with an exceptionally offensive username had been indefinitrly blocked as a vandalism-only account. I reported the username to this board for attention, but my report was removed by a bot since the account was already blocked. Is there any procedure for reporting offensive names if the account is already blocked? RolandR ( talk) 00:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone have an objection if I do some clerking here and at WP:UAA/HP. I'm only planning to do the following at this stage:
Regards, Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Watchubot_block_review may be of interest re: the blocking of names ending in -bot. Secretlondon ( talk) 01:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about the manner in which promotional usernames should be blocked. Please participate at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC - Handling promotional usernames to help reach a consensus. NTox · talk 02:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Admins should kindly take a look from time to time at the usernames listed at CAT:UAA. Electric Catfish 23:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I have found that I am very regularly edit conflicting with the bot here. If I decide not to block the user but to warn them, I will typically give the warning, then go back to UAA to put the discussion with user template on the request. However, the bot, seeing my warning, will post its helpful 'possible username issue' note. I will often conflict with the bot; it's posted its note telling me that there might be an issue, which it has only done because I warned the user - once or twice is fine, but it happens almost every time I choose to warn a user. Is there a way to avoid this? Or could the bot operate slightly differently? ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 22:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)