![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
Editors whose username is a potential violation of the policy may be notified using {{ subst:uw-username}} and/or reported to Wikipedia: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.
Yep. It looks like we have really been sending a mixed message here. I don't know how to even edit [ [1]] though. I'll ask around. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia. 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:
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
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)
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)
The Helperbots appear to be editing while logged out...-- ukexpat ( talk) 14:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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
Read!
Talk!
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.
Is Petercapaldi12 a blockable username; as it implies the editor is Peter Capaldi? Thanks, Mat ty. 007 18:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
this page is screwing with WP site code /info/en/?search=User_talk:HitroMilanese Nonartinfo ( talk) 20:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 talk 09:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
Hi folks, please be on the lookout for suspicious names that might be trolls. Bearian ( talk) 23:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back DQB bot, let me buy you a drink. Cheers, Mlpearc ( open channel) 23:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Views sought ^ – xeno talk 15:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
I've just noticed this designation appearing by new accounts. What does it signify?— John the Baptist ( talk) 04:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
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
Imperatrix Mundi
11:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
The bot appears to be logged out, but still operational. Thread at WP:BOWN. — xaosflux Talk 04:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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 Wikipedia username should remain Pass a Method, but there is apparently a problem with changing his English Wikipedia username back to Pass a Method because it means that it will be a global move. Flyer22 ( talk) 16:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I see a lot of -Guy usernames taking up our time here when it seems that MascotGuy ( Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/MascotGuy) hasn't been active in a number of years. Has anyone actually identified any \bGuy$ flagged accounts as MascotGuy recently or is it worth removing this as a bot username flag? Sam Walton ( talk) 00:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
What I would like is a clear idea of which regexes have a very high FP rate, and whether these can be fixed easily (including by nusing the Whitelist). Definitely any entry which is present mweerely due to a single sockpuppeteer should be removed once the sockpuppeteer seems to be gone. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
... if the instructions for user-reporting names indicated whether we are supposed to put our listings at the top or the bottom of the list. Some Wikipedia pages want it to be done it one way, some the other. I note that currently there are new listings both at the top and at the bottom of the list, showing that people are confused and are guessing what they are supposed to do. That could easily be avoided if the current instructions -
<!-- List begins below this line. -->
were changed to
<!-- List begins below this line. Please place new listings at the TOP of the list.
-->
Just a suggestion! -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
<!-- List begins below this line. Please place new listings at the BOTTOM of the list. -->
It should be noted that Twinkle inserts names at the top of the section. If any change is made the ordering, then those folks will need to be aware of it. -- Drm310 ( talk) 00:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: still seems to be causing confusion (well to me at least!) now. It still has a mess of mixed orders. Was it finally resolved? Can it be made any clearer, please?? :) DBaK ( talk) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Can we get the bots to edit this page again because they've not been editing since yesterday. (They are sill editing AIV) MadGuy7023 ( talk) 19:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
User "Sturmgewehr88" (which translates roughly to "Assualt Rifle of the SS" (the 88 is -in context- a Nazi reference)) has a username that would not be allowed in English, especially with the SS reference. I have no idea how your policies work or who should do what so I leave it here in case someone wants to look at it. /info/en/?search=User:Sturmgewehr88 Gustavail ( talk) 22:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
This issue is now being discussed here. Please direct all comments to that board. ansh 666 08:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
To clear the backlog, which contiues to grow. BMK ( talk) 06:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I've been working on the rather long backlog at the holding pen and have noted a few things:
Sorry for going on, I know it's been backlogged here and folks are trying to help, but the holding pen has been a god-awful mess, and it's enough work to clean it up without slogging through a lot of junk reports, and I'm not going to block someone when the only attempt to discuss with them was an uninformative one-line comment two months ago. I've cleared November and December, so we're down to only reports from this year. Progress. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. It looks like your bot should match these strings:
Skip filters:
Skip filters:
Note: do not match titanic/titanium.
-- Pikachu2568 ( talk) 13:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Do not match faces.
-- Pikachu2568 ( talk) 06:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Skip filters: pwnage (matched: (o/p)wnage) -- Pikachu2568 ( talk) 02:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Skip filters: sux
Skip filters:
-- Pikachu2568 ( talk) 08:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
After several false positives regarding "p125", "p152" and "p122", I think the bot should whitelist the following:
-- ToonLucas22 ( talk) 23:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes the bot does not appear to want to remove certain users who are blocked. It is actually removing some blocked users but not others. I have tried this on one of my own reports to see if it resolves it issue, but it didn't. It would be useful if we could get the bot to remove these reports itself so we that don't have to remove them manually. MadGuy7023 ( talk) 22:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I was making a plan in the future that my future bot, PikaBot, will patrol the page WP:UAA for reporting users. Check the bot script here.
Thanks. (That is the future, it does. not come in days nor weeks nor months but many years) Pikachu2568 ( talk) 12:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
There have been a lot of Gabucho181 socks with the letters "MLP" at the beginning and one with "Gabucho". Consider blacklisting this:
Keep in mind that Gabucho said that he will be leaving Wikipedia to disrupt gaming sites. Altrough it is a bad sign, Wikipedia at least will be safe. -- TL22 ( talk) 22:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Just now when I manually reported a username here, I followed the instruction at the edit window that says <!-- Add new reports to the TOP of this list. --> But I see that I was the only one to add my report to the top; all others are going to the bottom. And now I see that there is another instruction, also at the edit window, that says <!-- List begins below this line. Please enter new reports at the bottom. Thanks! --> Can we clear this up, please? -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Why not let it say "Matched: weewee" (clerknote: slang) instead? — Pikachu pika! 256 8 @ 09:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments invited as to whether we should begin directing users to the Special:GlobalRenameRequest interface for straightforward renames. – xeno talk 16:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Somebody reported Georgejohn69 ( talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • ( block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) to the project page. This completely freaks me out, as it is wrongly motivated. Here is what I blurted after that report:
The idea that any possible construction of any possible 'dirty' name from any known language is "fair game" here is appalling. And unworkable.
For instance, do you know that 'dabian' is a 'dirty' word in Chinese. Well, when you use a specific romanization of a specific variety of Chinese for a particular word. ( Pinyin Mandarin Chinese 大便).
You don't know Pinyin? Horrors, there's a Dabian ( talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • ( block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)! Oh wow, it's another dirty minded Dane! Or, you know, maybe they weren't thinking of Chinese at all. Looks like a computer nerd to me.
But that's the point. You can't know all possible variations of maliciously-derived names. You don't know them all, and if you strain at it you will make mistakes and cause people to wonder about your 'purity' if not your puritanical morality.
I strongly advocate a reversal of the purity mindset: If there is any possible 'reading' of a user name that is believably innocent, then wait to see what the user actually does. Today I wouldn't give odds on a new user PerV ( talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • ( block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal). Likely you wouldn't even let them add the exculpatory note that they are Danish. (It took them over a month before editing their user page here)
How about Dixit ( talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • ( block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal), an Indian name? You know how that can be pronounced, right? (That got an Australian radio personality thrown off the air) Oh... how predictable, telling someone their family name is 'nasty' somewhere on this globe. How small that is... the globe I mean.
Or... is it that the ever patient Diannaa will always post an understanding Wait until the user edits and I'm just hyper-ventilating about the quick-draw noms? Shenme ( talk) 08:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
I've had to stop the bot due to some vandalism that occurred on the waitlist page. It has to be manually rescued and I don't have the time on my lunch break now to do so, so the bot will be down for 6+ hours. FYI -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Something is wrong with the bot-reported section. It appears in the /bot page but not in the main page. Vincent60030 ( talk) 10:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
For admins who often find themselves deleting spam/vandalism user pages and then blocking the user: I've just finished writing User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SpamUserPage, and it might save you a lot of work. When viewing a spam/vandalism user page, it can delete the page, block the user, and issue the user with a block notice, all in one click. Plus, it's highly configurable, so you can use your own custom templates etc. with it. Please test it out and see what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Are these allowed nowadays? Jesuschrist16 ( talk · contribs). These names used to be explicitly forbidden, but I can't find it in policy. -- B ( talk) 22:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Haseebjan123 ( talk) 11:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed a trend on this board (not sure how long it's been going on) to be way too quick to report names here. I see names being reported just because when it's written backwards and then translated into Fooian, it happens to rhyme with a synonym of a swearword. I see names that haven't been used in months or years reported. And I see "promotional" usernames that haven't promoted anything being reported. I don't see how the edit notice could be more visible than it already is, so how might we remind people that UAA is for blatant violations of the username policy that need to be blocked? -- Jakob ( talk) aka Jakec 18:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the way we deal with the holding pen. I was babysitting it for a while but I kind of stopped around mid-May, it looks like User:Diannaa has been doing all the reviewing by herself since then. If we are having trouble finding two admins to keep an eye on an administrative process, it suggests there may some flaws with that process. It looks like there hasn't been a comprehensive discussion about the HP since 2012, so now seems like a good time to go over some things and maybe make some changes.
Personally, I like the first idea the best, but any of these would be better than the way it is being handled now. Thoughts? Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User:Amerijuanican I really don't feel like it's right for someone to promote drugs that are illegal in some parts of america and is illegal. Don't want him banned, but can he please change his name to something else? Skateduderad ( talk) 00:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd basically like to re-open these discussions from 2011 and 2012as things seem to have backslid into the "hard block" as the preferred option for users with a WP:ORGNAME violation and one single promo edit in userspace. I don't think that's the best way to handle it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The character limit on the English Wikipedia (according to one of the bots) is 40. However, if that were the case, wouldn't the account creation system prevent such accounts being made, especially since they can only be made globally now? (See SUL) Tropicalkitty ( talk) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It's getting clogged up on the project page. Kindly someone pls help thanks! Sorry for the inconvenience caused and have a happy holiday and Happy New Year! :) VKZY LUFan ( talk) ( Mind the Gap!) 11:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
It appears from the history that some editors are reporting user name violations by pushing a button that enters "Reporting [Badname]" in the history, and formatting the request. Where is the button? I have had to edit the page manually, but there appears to be a button. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
{{UAA|ch}} now produces the following:
Dat Guy Talk Contribs 15:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The bot report is a false positive. It's chemistry. If you replace the x with 3, it is sodium bicarbonate or baking soda. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Is posting here the way for non-clerk non-admin users to identify false positives? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
What with the current backlog that tends to get pretty large, and the backlog in the holding pen full of unworthy reports, I propose a new operational policy for the UAA page:
Rationale: Mere existence is not actionable. If an offending username has no edits, that username doesn't magically become less visible by blocking it. A prohibited username becomes visible to the community only by performing edits. The existence and visibility of a username that has no edits is unchanged regardless of whether we block it.
This proposal is analogous to our current practice with article protection: we don't protect articles pre-emptively, we protect to stop disruption. Similarly we don't need to block pre-emptively; this is a waste of time. We block to stop disruption. And if we don't need to block pre-emptively, we don't even need to see usernames that have no activity. A user can become disruptive only by editing, not by existing.
I have known of companies who create an account on Wikipedia with no intention to use it, simply because they want to avoid the bad PR that may happen if some disgruntled person creates an account with the company's name and proceeds to make the company look bad. Blocking such usernames simply wastes administrator time.
The bot that currently reports usernames can put them in its own holding pen that requires no administrative action, scan them every day or so for activity, and if any username on its list has editing activity, only then would the bot report it. The bot can expire usernames from its own internal list after a few months.
Similarly, another bot (or the same one) can scan editor submissions of usernames that may violate policy, and move inactive ones to its internal monitoring list. We already have a bot (which sometimes works) that automatically removes usernames from the list when they are blocked. Similarly, inactive usernames could be moved to an internal holding pen when they are scanned and found to have no edits.
In this way, policy #1 is maintained. Editors won't be prohibited for proposing usernames for blocking; if the username has no edits, the bot simply files it away for monitoring. The end result is a list that is manageable with a higher proportion of actionable usernames. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 08:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a point, let me lay it out:
You will notice in both scenarios 1 and 3 the user gets blocked, but in scenario 3 one of our users has a negative experience. The only thing we gain from not blocking is that we... don't block in scenario 2. I don't know about you but the block button is pretty easy for me and when I see a name that indicates a likelihood of disruption I block it before they abuse someone not after.
The board is for obvious violations, not just accounts that have been disruptive in the past. This seems like two very different proposals with very different merits and faults, they should be considered separately. HighInBC 01:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Names with question marks in them seem to break some talk page links, but not others. I don't know if this disruption is the fault of the name or the link escaping, but I just thought I'd ask about it... —PC -XT + 04:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, there was smth unusual going on yesterday the 15th, I would like to ask what happened exactly, if anybody knows? Step-by-Step:
Netto result: Double work for admins, removal of a still pending Username report by overwriting, re-reporting of already blocked Usernames (I take it, ten minutes inbetween is long enough to know), and a "no" that might actually require an admin instead of an editor? Could anyone reconstruct what was the rationale behind this, please? Horseless Headman ( talk) 12:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC).
- 20:46: Hello71 reports (apparently manually?) three bits of info 1:
- inserts a "no" for a given username report. I am not sure, but I thought this final decision / action is limited to admins only (even if it seems a good faith edit)? In this regard, I myself could report Usernames to UAA and then give them a "yes" myself?
- re-introduces my Eatdookieshoots report (which had been blocked already at that moment, as described above);
- overwrites my (new and at that moment still pending) report of Pinkypoo345 to instead become a report of Schlong Chinker once more, appearing as if again by its original reporter, User:Mr. Guye, also with its original time: 19:22. This name also had been blocked already at the moment of re-reporting.
- 20:47 Bishonen blocks Eatdookieshoots again 1;
- 20:47: Bishonen blocks Schlong Chinker again 1;
Is filter 148 failing? As of today, the last log entries are from February 13th. -- Drm310 ( talk) 16:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Non-admins are allowed to report false positives by the bot, right? There have been several today. Regards, -- Ches (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Mohenjo Daro (film) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
It is come to my notice that
Someonedifferent001 is reverting positive and sourced edits to his own versions despite enough edit summaries mentioned by me.
Arjann (
talk)
04:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello. At the beginning of Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, we have:
<!--PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS BOARD AUTOMATICALLY SETS THE ADMIN BACKLOG FLAG WHEN A CERTAIN THRESHOLD IS MET --> <!-- Also, please do not remove the following coding without discussion at [[WT:UAA]] first, as certain elements of the board could be adversely affected. --> <noinclude>{{/Header}} <noinclude>{{noadminbacklog}}</noinclude><!-- v2.0.27 RemoveBlocked=On MergeDuplicates=On AutoMark=On FixInstructireons=Off AutoBacklog=On AddLimit=10 RemoveLimit=5 --> </noinclude> <center><u>'''Note'''</u>: Patrollers are kindly asked to monitor usernames listed at <span class="plainlinks"> [{{fullurl:Special:AbuseLog|wpSearchFilter=102}} '''Filter 102'''], [{{fullurl:Special:AbuseLog|wpSearchFilter=148}} '''Filter 148'''], [{{fullurl:Special:AbuseLog|wpSearchFilter=149}} '''Filter 149'''], [{{fullurl:Special:AbuseLog|wpSearchFilter=354}} '''Filter 354'''] <sup>([{{fullurl:Special:RecentChanges|tagfilter=Possible+self+promotion+in+userspace}} tags])</sup></span>, [[WP:UAA/HP]], and [[CAT:UAA]].</center> <noinclude>[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]] [[Category:Wikipedia noticeboards]] [[Category:Wikipedia user conduct]] </noinclude> {{No admin backlog}}<!-- v2.0.15 RemoveBlocked=On MergeDuplicates=Off AutoMark=Off FixInstructions=Off AutoBacklog=Off AddLimit=5 RemoveLimit=2 --> {{Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot}}
And this code cannot be correct. I have moved the orphan </noinclude> in order to balance the <noinclude>{{/Header}}. It remains that two {{ noadminbacklog}} are on conflict, by their very existence, and also by the way they are or not included in transclusions. What to do with them ? Pldx1 ( talk) 23:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the single purpose account Web29com has too much of a resenblance to web29.com, which returns search results as an SEO company. Feel free to delete this request if I am wrong. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 19:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Can the bot that adds and removes the backlog notice be turned on, since this page is often very backlogged? -- Laber□ T 13:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Anarchyte: I propose that we make a template for the UAA system. I don't know what else to say, other than the fact that it might be useful in reducing the tediousness in writing out "Violation of the username policy as a...". You can view the template's draft here. HeatIsCool ( talk) 13:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Odd names, could be socks. No contribs but might bear watching:
Very odd, both created within minutes of each other. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
May normal (non-admin; no elevated rights) users edit this page to remove obvious (bot) errors? This might help clear the backlog and allow admins to focus on the actual violations of Wikipedia's username policy. Mgs2804 ( talk) 09:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear editors: I haven't worked in this area before, but I saw that there was a backlog so I thought that I would help out. I read the instruction page, but there is no mention there of how to deal with bot-reported items. If they are obvious false positives, should they just be removed right away? There is no "filing editor" to be notified. Or is there a reason for leaving them on the list with a comment for a period of time? Is this information written somewhere that I missed?— Anne Delong ( talk) 13:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
{{
UAA|fp}}
to
responseHelper. Best —
MusikAnimal
talk
05:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see 86.44.11.11:
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/86.44.11.11 -- Avindra talk / contribs 00:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
At Bot-reported UAA, DQB is listing accounts that match a filter but who have not yet all edited. The UAA instructions say "Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA. Nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." If they haven't edited yet, should the bot be reporting such accounts pre-emptively? I asked Amanda about this and she said to discuss it. Fences& Windows 06:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it possible for these strings to be added to the blacklist?
Thanks in advance. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 15:43, 1 September 2016 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
Editors whose username is a potential violation of the policy may be notified using {{ subst:uw-username}} and/or reported to Wikipedia: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.
Yep. It looks like we have really been sending a mixed message here. I don't know how to even edit [ [1]] though. I'll ask around. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia. 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:
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
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)
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)
The Helperbots appear to be editing while logged out...-- ukexpat ( talk) 14:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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
Read!
Talk!
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.
Is Petercapaldi12 a blockable username; as it implies the editor is Peter Capaldi? Thanks, Mat ty. 007 18:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
this page is screwing with WP site code /info/en/?search=User_talk:HitroMilanese Nonartinfo ( talk) 20:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 talk 09:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
Hi folks, please be on the lookout for suspicious names that might be trolls. Bearian ( talk) 23:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back DQB bot, let me buy you a drink. Cheers, Mlpearc ( open channel) 23:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Views sought ^ – xeno talk 15:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
I've just noticed this designation appearing by new accounts. What does it signify?— John the Baptist ( talk) 04:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
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
Imperatrix Mundi
11:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
The bot appears to be logged out, but still operational. Thread at WP:BOWN. — xaosflux Talk 04:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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 Wikipedia username should remain Pass a Method, but there is apparently a problem with changing his English Wikipedia username back to Pass a Method because it means that it will be a global move. Flyer22 ( talk) 16:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I see a lot of -Guy usernames taking up our time here when it seems that MascotGuy ( Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/MascotGuy) hasn't been active in a number of years. Has anyone actually identified any \bGuy$ flagged accounts as MascotGuy recently or is it worth removing this as a bot username flag? Sam Walton ( talk) 00:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
What I would like is a clear idea of which regexes have a very high FP rate, and whether these can be fixed easily (including by nusing the Whitelist). Definitely any entry which is present mweerely due to a single sockpuppeteer should be removed once the sockpuppeteer seems to be gone. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
... if the instructions for user-reporting names indicated whether we are supposed to put our listings at the top or the bottom of the list. Some Wikipedia pages want it to be done it one way, some the other. I note that currently there are new listings both at the top and at the bottom of the list, showing that people are confused and are guessing what they are supposed to do. That could easily be avoided if the current instructions -
<!-- List begins below this line. -->
were changed to
<!-- List begins below this line. Please place new listings at the TOP of the list.
-->
Just a suggestion! -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
<!-- List begins below this line. Please place new listings at the BOTTOM of the list. -->
It should be noted that Twinkle inserts names at the top of the section. If any change is made the ordering, then those folks will need to be aware of it. -- Drm310 ( talk) 00:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: still seems to be causing confusion (well to me at least!) now. It still has a mess of mixed orders. Was it finally resolved? Can it be made any clearer, please?? :) DBaK ( talk) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Can we get the bots to edit this page again because they've not been editing since yesterday. (They are sill editing AIV) MadGuy7023 ( talk) 19:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
User "Sturmgewehr88" (which translates roughly to "Assualt Rifle of the SS" (the 88 is -in context- a Nazi reference)) has a username that would not be allowed in English, especially with the SS reference. I have no idea how your policies work or who should do what so I leave it here in case someone wants to look at it. /info/en/?search=User:Sturmgewehr88 Gustavail ( talk) 22:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
This issue is now being discussed here. Please direct all comments to that board. ansh 666 08:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
To clear the backlog, which contiues to grow. BMK ( talk) 06:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I've been working on the rather long backlog at the holding pen and have noted a few things:
Sorry for going on, I know it's been backlogged here and folks are trying to help, but the holding pen has been a god-awful mess, and it's enough work to clean it up without slogging through a lot of junk reports, and I'm not going to block someone when the only attempt to discuss with them was an uninformative one-line comment two months ago. I've cleared November and December, so we're down to only reports from this year. Progress. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. It looks like your bot should match these strings:
Skip filters:
Skip filters:
Note: do not match titanic/titanium.
-- Pikachu2568 ( talk) 13:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Do not match faces.
-- Pikachu2568 ( talk) 06:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Skip filters: pwnage (matched: (o/p)wnage) -- Pikachu2568 ( talk) 02:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Skip filters: sux
Skip filters:
-- Pikachu2568 ( talk) 08:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
After several false positives regarding "p125", "p152" and "p122", I think the bot should whitelist the following:
-- ToonLucas22 ( talk) 23:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes the bot does not appear to want to remove certain users who are blocked. It is actually removing some blocked users but not others. I have tried this on one of my own reports to see if it resolves it issue, but it didn't. It would be useful if we could get the bot to remove these reports itself so we that don't have to remove them manually. MadGuy7023 ( talk) 22:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I was making a plan in the future that my future bot, PikaBot, will patrol the page WP:UAA for reporting users. Check the bot script here.
Thanks. (That is the future, it does. not come in days nor weeks nor months but many years) Pikachu2568 ( talk) 12:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
There have been a lot of Gabucho181 socks with the letters "MLP" at the beginning and one with "Gabucho". Consider blacklisting this:
Keep in mind that Gabucho said that he will be leaving Wikipedia to disrupt gaming sites. Altrough it is a bad sign, Wikipedia at least will be safe. -- TL22 ( talk) 22:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Just now when I manually reported a username here, I followed the instruction at the edit window that says <!-- Add new reports to the TOP of this list. --> But I see that I was the only one to add my report to the top; all others are going to the bottom. And now I see that there is another instruction, also at the edit window, that says <!-- List begins below this line. Please enter new reports at the bottom. Thanks! --> Can we clear this up, please? -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Why not let it say "Matched: weewee" (clerknote: slang) instead? — Pikachu pika! 256 8 @ 09:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments invited as to whether we should begin directing users to the Special:GlobalRenameRequest interface for straightforward renames. – xeno talk 16:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Somebody reported Georgejohn69 ( talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • ( block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) to the project page. This completely freaks me out, as it is wrongly motivated. Here is what I blurted after that report:
The idea that any possible construction of any possible 'dirty' name from any known language is "fair game" here is appalling. And unworkable.
For instance, do you know that 'dabian' is a 'dirty' word in Chinese. Well, when you use a specific romanization of a specific variety of Chinese for a particular word. ( Pinyin Mandarin Chinese 大便).
You don't know Pinyin? Horrors, there's a Dabian ( talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • ( block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)! Oh wow, it's another dirty minded Dane! Or, you know, maybe they weren't thinking of Chinese at all. Looks like a computer nerd to me.
But that's the point. You can't know all possible variations of maliciously-derived names. You don't know them all, and if you strain at it you will make mistakes and cause people to wonder about your 'purity' if not your puritanical morality.
I strongly advocate a reversal of the purity mindset: If there is any possible 'reading' of a user name that is believably innocent, then wait to see what the user actually does. Today I wouldn't give odds on a new user PerV ( talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • ( block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal). Likely you wouldn't even let them add the exculpatory note that they are Danish. (It took them over a month before editing their user page here)
How about Dixit ( talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • ( block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal), an Indian name? You know how that can be pronounced, right? (That got an Australian radio personality thrown off the air) Oh... how predictable, telling someone their family name is 'nasty' somewhere on this globe. How small that is... the globe I mean.
Or... is it that the ever patient Diannaa will always post an understanding Wait until the user edits and I'm just hyper-ventilating about the quick-draw noms? Shenme ( talk) 08:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
I've had to stop the bot due to some vandalism that occurred on the waitlist page. It has to be manually rescued and I don't have the time on my lunch break now to do so, so the bot will be down for 6+ hours. FYI -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Something is wrong with the bot-reported section. It appears in the /bot page but not in the main page. Vincent60030 ( talk) 10:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
For admins who often find themselves deleting spam/vandalism user pages and then blocking the user: I've just finished writing User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SpamUserPage, and it might save you a lot of work. When viewing a spam/vandalism user page, it can delete the page, block the user, and issue the user with a block notice, all in one click. Plus, it's highly configurable, so you can use your own custom templates etc. with it. Please test it out and see what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Are these allowed nowadays? Jesuschrist16 ( talk · contribs). These names used to be explicitly forbidden, but I can't find it in policy. -- B ( talk) 22:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Haseebjan123 ( talk) 11:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed a trend on this board (not sure how long it's been going on) to be way too quick to report names here. I see names being reported just because when it's written backwards and then translated into Fooian, it happens to rhyme with a synonym of a swearword. I see names that haven't been used in months or years reported. And I see "promotional" usernames that haven't promoted anything being reported. I don't see how the edit notice could be more visible than it already is, so how might we remind people that UAA is for blatant violations of the username policy that need to be blocked? -- Jakob ( talk) aka Jakec 18:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the way we deal with the holding pen. I was babysitting it for a while but I kind of stopped around mid-May, it looks like User:Diannaa has been doing all the reviewing by herself since then. If we are having trouble finding two admins to keep an eye on an administrative process, it suggests there may some flaws with that process. It looks like there hasn't been a comprehensive discussion about the HP since 2012, so now seems like a good time to go over some things and maybe make some changes.
Personally, I like the first idea the best, but any of these would be better than the way it is being handled now. Thoughts? Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User:Amerijuanican I really don't feel like it's right for someone to promote drugs that are illegal in some parts of america and is illegal. Don't want him banned, but can he please change his name to something else? Skateduderad ( talk) 00:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd basically like to re-open these discussions from 2011 and 2012as things seem to have backslid into the "hard block" as the preferred option for users with a WP:ORGNAME violation and one single promo edit in userspace. I don't think that's the best way to handle it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The character limit on the English Wikipedia (according to one of the bots) is 40. However, if that were the case, wouldn't the account creation system prevent such accounts being made, especially since they can only be made globally now? (See SUL) Tropicalkitty ( talk) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It's getting clogged up on the project page. Kindly someone pls help thanks! Sorry for the inconvenience caused and have a happy holiday and Happy New Year! :) VKZY LUFan ( talk) ( Mind the Gap!) 11:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
It appears from the history that some editors are reporting user name violations by pushing a button that enters "Reporting [Badname]" in the history, and formatting the request. Where is the button? I have had to edit the page manually, but there appears to be a button. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
{{UAA|ch}} now produces the following:
Dat Guy Talk Contribs 15:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The bot report is a false positive. It's chemistry. If you replace the x with 3, it is sodium bicarbonate or baking soda. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Is posting here the way for non-clerk non-admin users to identify false positives? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
What with the current backlog that tends to get pretty large, and the backlog in the holding pen full of unworthy reports, I propose a new operational policy for the UAA page:
Rationale: Mere existence is not actionable. If an offending username has no edits, that username doesn't magically become less visible by blocking it. A prohibited username becomes visible to the community only by performing edits. The existence and visibility of a username that has no edits is unchanged regardless of whether we block it.
This proposal is analogous to our current practice with article protection: we don't protect articles pre-emptively, we protect to stop disruption. Similarly we don't need to block pre-emptively; this is a waste of time. We block to stop disruption. And if we don't need to block pre-emptively, we don't even need to see usernames that have no activity. A user can become disruptive only by editing, not by existing.
I have known of companies who create an account on Wikipedia with no intention to use it, simply because they want to avoid the bad PR that may happen if some disgruntled person creates an account with the company's name and proceeds to make the company look bad. Blocking such usernames simply wastes administrator time.
The bot that currently reports usernames can put them in its own holding pen that requires no administrative action, scan them every day or so for activity, and if any username on its list has editing activity, only then would the bot report it. The bot can expire usernames from its own internal list after a few months.
Similarly, another bot (or the same one) can scan editor submissions of usernames that may violate policy, and move inactive ones to its internal monitoring list. We already have a bot (which sometimes works) that automatically removes usernames from the list when they are blocked. Similarly, inactive usernames could be moved to an internal holding pen when they are scanned and found to have no edits.
In this way, policy #1 is maintained. Editors won't be prohibited for proposing usernames for blocking; if the username has no edits, the bot simply files it away for monitoring. The end result is a list that is manageable with a higher proportion of actionable usernames. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 08:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a point, let me lay it out:
You will notice in both scenarios 1 and 3 the user gets blocked, but in scenario 3 one of our users has a negative experience. The only thing we gain from not blocking is that we... don't block in scenario 2. I don't know about you but the block button is pretty easy for me and when I see a name that indicates a likelihood of disruption I block it before they abuse someone not after.
The board is for obvious violations, not just accounts that have been disruptive in the past. This seems like two very different proposals with very different merits and faults, they should be considered separately. HighInBC 01:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Names with question marks in them seem to break some talk page links, but not others. I don't know if this disruption is the fault of the name or the link escaping, but I just thought I'd ask about it... —PC -XT + 04:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, there was smth unusual going on yesterday the 15th, I would like to ask what happened exactly, if anybody knows? Step-by-Step:
Netto result: Double work for admins, removal of a still pending Username report by overwriting, re-reporting of already blocked Usernames (I take it, ten minutes inbetween is long enough to know), and a "no" that might actually require an admin instead of an editor? Could anyone reconstruct what was the rationale behind this, please? Horseless Headman ( talk) 12:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC).
- 20:46: Hello71 reports (apparently manually?) three bits of info 1:
- inserts a "no" for a given username report. I am not sure, but I thought this final decision / action is limited to admins only (even if it seems a good faith edit)? In this regard, I myself could report Usernames to UAA and then give them a "yes" myself?
- re-introduces my Eatdookieshoots report (which had been blocked already at that moment, as described above);
- overwrites my (new and at that moment still pending) report of Pinkypoo345 to instead become a report of Schlong Chinker once more, appearing as if again by its original reporter, User:Mr. Guye, also with its original time: 19:22. This name also had been blocked already at the moment of re-reporting.
- 20:47 Bishonen blocks Eatdookieshoots again 1;
- 20:47: Bishonen blocks Schlong Chinker again 1;
Is filter 148 failing? As of today, the last log entries are from February 13th. -- Drm310 ( talk) 16:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Non-admins are allowed to report false positives by the bot, right? There have been several today. Regards, -- Ches (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Mohenjo Daro (film) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
It is come to my notice that
Someonedifferent001 is reverting positive and sourced edits to his own versions despite enough edit summaries mentioned by me.
Arjann (
talk)
04:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello. At the beginning of Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, we have:
<!--PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS BOARD AUTOMATICALLY SETS THE ADMIN BACKLOG FLAG WHEN A CERTAIN THRESHOLD IS MET --> <!-- Also, please do not remove the following coding without discussion at [[WT:UAA]] first, as certain elements of the board could be adversely affected. --> <noinclude>{{/Header}} <noinclude>{{noadminbacklog}}</noinclude><!-- v2.0.27 RemoveBlocked=On MergeDuplicates=On AutoMark=On FixInstructireons=Off AutoBacklog=On AddLimit=10 RemoveLimit=5 --> </noinclude> <center><u>'''Note'''</u>: Patrollers are kindly asked to monitor usernames listed at <span class="plainlinks"> [{{fullurl:Special:AbuseLog|wpSearchFilter=102}} '''Filter 102'''], [{{fullurl:Special:AbuseLog|wpSearchFilter=148}} '''Filter 148'''], [{{fullurl:Special:AbuseLog|wpSearchFilter=149}} '''Filter 149'''], [{{fullurl:Special:AbuseLog|wpSearchFilter=354}} '''Filter 354'''] <sup>([{{fullurl:Special:RecentChanges|tagfilter=Possible+self+promotion+in+userspace}} tags])</sup></span>, [[WP:UAA/HP]], and [[CAT:UAA]].</center> <noinclude>[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]] [[Category:Wikipedia noticeboards]] [[Category:Wikipedia user conduct]] </noinclude> {{No admin backlog}}<!-- v2.0.15 RemoveBlocked=On MergeDuplicates=Off AutoMark=Off FixInstructions=Off AutoBacklog=Off AddLimit=5 RemoveLimit=2 --> {{Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot}}
And this code cannot be correct. I have moved the orphan </noinclude> in order to balance the <noinclude>{{/Header}}. It remains that two {{ noadminbacklog}} are on conflict, by their very existence, and also by the way they are or not included in transclusions. What to do with them ? Pldx1 ( talk) 23:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the single purpose account Web29com has too much of a resenblance to web29.com, which returns search results as an SEO company. Feel free to delete this request if I am wrong. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 19:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Can the bot that adds and removes the backlog notice be turned on, since this page is often very backlogged? -- Laber□ T 13:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Anarchyte: I propose that we make a template for the UAA system. I don't know what else to say, other than the fact that it might be useful in reducing the tediousness in writing out "Violation of the username policy as a...". You can view the template's draft here. HeatIsCool ( talk) 13:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Odd names, could be socks. No contribs but might bear watching:
Very odd, both created within minutes of each other. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
May normal (non-admin; no elevated rights) users edit this page to remove obvious (bot) errors? This might help clear the backlog and allow admins to focus on the actual violations of Wikipedia's username policy. Mgs2804 ( talk) 09:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear editors: I haven't worked in this area before, but I saw that there was a backlog so I thought that I would help out. I read the instruction page, but there is no mention there of how to deal with bot-reported items. If they are obvious false positives, should they just be removed right away? There is no "filing editor" to be notified. Or is there a reason for leaving them on the list with a comment for a period of time? Is this information written somewhere that I missed?— Anne Delong ( talk) 13:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
{{
UAA|fp}}
to
responseHelper. Best —
MusikAnimal
talk
05:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see 86.44.11.11:
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/86.44.11.11 -- Avindra talk / contribs 00:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
At Bot-reported UAA, DQB is listing accounts that match a filter but who have not yet all edited. The UAA instructions say "Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA. Nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." If they haven't edited yet, should the bot be reporting such accounts pre-emptively? I asked Amanda about this and she said to discuss it. Fences& Windows 06:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it possible for these strings to be added to the blacklist?
Thanks in advance. Linguist 111 Moi? Moi. 15:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)