Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 25

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.

Section 7.1 Deleting and merging accounts has nothing whatsoever about merging accounts. Keith (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

talk

) 21:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"It is recommended that contributors not use multiple accounts without good reason."

Less wordy = "Using multiple accounts without a good reason is not recommended."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.88.25 (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2018‎ (UTC)

 Done --Danski454 (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

 Undone: This request has been undone. --Danski454 (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

See

Can someone either point me to the WMF legal policy requiring accounts to be associated with an individual and not a group, or explain to me what is the rationale behind forbidding shared accounts? I thought it was a requirement per the ToU but I cannot see it anywhere in wmf:Terms_of_Use/en#Our_Terms_of_Use.

(Note that I am talking about names that violate

According to the licensing Wikipedia is published under, all original contributions must be attributed to an individual, which is satisfied by a pseudonymous account operated by a single otherwise anonymous individual, but is not satisfied by a shared account. AFAIK this is not a WMF or TOU issue. It is primarily a licensing issue. For example, verified official organizational accounts are permitted at least in practice on Commons (although it's complicated). But for the most part, if a piece of media is appropriately licensed, it ought to be permitted on Common regardless of the account that uploaded it. Although this gets into shady areas when you consider that any original contribution, such as a file description not taken verbatim from something like an original catalog entry, would still need to be attributable to an individual to satisfy the terms of the license. Other projects block outright as en.wiki does (e.g., s:WS:ALT, s:WS:BP#Usernames, wikt:WT:USER). Other projects discourage but don't explicitly forbid them (e.g., q:WQ:U), but it's not clear such a policy (as in cases of original contributions to Commons) would actually conform to the licensing if explicitly challenged. GMG^talk 14:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I've always considered the licensing argument to be a nonsense, when you consider we permit pseudonymous users, anon/shared IPs, open proxies, and public domain contributions. It's definitely local policy though, following previous discussions (probably in this page's archives). If I recall correctly we simply want one person to be held responsible for all of one account's actions. We do additionally have (potentially legal) problems when a user claims to represent an organisation, and it just generally raises problems we don't want to deal with. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, CC BY SA provides specifically for the use of pseudonyms for attribution (I presume IPs are treated as transitory pseudonyms for licensing purposes). Open proxies are not really permitted (m:No open proxies). I'm not sure I understand the relevance public domain here. But there are certainly also non-license related reasons to prefer a prohibition on shared accounts. GMG^talk 15:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The text of the open proxy policy was updated ten years ago, but is frequently misquoted. It has said for a long time, "users ... may freely use proxies". BTW, Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy/Archive_18#RfC_on_the_WP:NOSHARE_prohibition. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, they may as long as they can. But that's all probably beside the point. GMG^talk 18:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. For context: I have always thought the "no shared accounts" rule was stupid, and the latest iteration nudged me into seriously considering opening an RfC to repeal it, but I had to do some homework first. I must say I am still not convinced.

Licensing stuff -> I fail to see how licensing makes shared accounts a problem, because we still attribute the account name, which surely satisfies CC-BY on our end. It could (potentially maybe futurely) cause nasty things when A claims to have done all the editing on User:A&B and B wants a share of the royalties from A's new book, and even if we don't care about A and B's disputes we might care of the risk of it spilling over (either disrupting our talk pages or them badmouthing Wikipedia in the press), but that is a long chain of hypotheticals. In any case, if it was obvious that there was legal repercussions, I would expect the WMF to have done something about the other wikis who allow shared accounts (there might still be a legal problem, but at any rate not an obvious one).

We do additionally have (potentially legal) problems when a user claims to represent an organisation (...) I would consider that to be better dealt by ORGNAME; the rationale is not "you should not use an account for multiple people" but "you should not have an 'official account'". User:BigCorpOfficial is problematic, but in the same way that User:BigCorpSpokespersonJeff is problematic, while User:SomeGalsAtBigCorp is not (in my view).

If I recall correctly we simply want one person to be held responsible for all of one account's actions. I can understand that as two sub-arguments, either of which I find unconvincing:

1. "We cannot (bureaucratically speaking) place blocks on specific persons behind the account." My answer is to just
   and all the rest
   , too bad for B, they should not have accepted a shared account in the first place. Maybe write something to say so in the policy, if necessary.
2. "We should not place blame and blocks on shared accounts", i.e. it is unfair to block Sally Sweetheart because Heidi Hothead misbehaved on their shared account. Well, maybe, but in the current situation the incentives are for Sally and Heidi to create a shared account in violation of policy and not tell anyone; the end result is that Sally gets blocked nonetheless. So the arguments rests on either "as soon as you violate policy, you deserve everything that comes your way" (and with that mentality, I do not see why blocking A&B for A's faults only is a problem as long as it is in the policy), or that it makes admins sleep more soundly because they did not knowingly block a collateral victim.

From the point of view of someone wanting a shared account, the world where they can register one but risk collateral punishment through no fault of their own is better than the world where they cannot at all. Also, of course, what ISU punishes is usernames implying shared use, not shared use itself, because obviously admins are not psychic and cannot determine the latter, but the former is surely a very poor proxy of the latter. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The licensing argument is a non-starter, from what I know. Other wikis allow shared accounts, and zzuuzz makes some great points beyond that. The only reason to disallow shared accounts here is the local policy. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Well, I've been sitting here reading about this for entirely too long now. It still doesn't jive well to my mind, that attributing to an account which is explicitly owned and operated by more than one individual would constitute meaningful attribution to "individuals" per the license, when presumably the attribution is to only one of the two (or more) and not to all individuals who share the account. As opposed to attributing to an "entity" like a company or organization, which is a "legal thing" that can "own stuff", and not like...Ms. Smith's Tenth Grade Class, which isn't and can't. If they uploaded or otherwise added content that was a joint creation, and had been previously published elsewhere, or simply existed off wiki, how could you ever verify the legitimacy of that? They would legally have joint ownership as individuals, but... ah, I dunno...

Anyway, I guess if you want to get real short and sweet about it, TOU prohibits the sharing of passwords to third parties. So presumably that would prevent truly shared accounts, as opposed to official role accounts used by only one individual. GMG^talk 18:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

If we assume (for the sake of the argument) that attribution requires to be to an individual, we should immediately forbid logged-out editing. Only the ISP can reliably associate an IP address to a name; furthermore, many IPs are dynamic over a wide range, so even if "whoever uses IP address XXX" becomes "whoever has used IP address XXX at that time". Of course, the real state of thing is that when you click "publish changes" you agree to all the legalese including You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license, so anonymous editors do not get to complain that only the IP was attributed; I do not see why that should be different for shared accounts. The CC-BY legalese is incomprehensible to me, but the CC wiki says authors may waive attribution altogether; I do not think plausible that one could waive attribution entirely by not providing authorship info, yet make a text unusable because the authorship info does not unequivocally identify a single person. (Notice that "I do not think plausible that..." is not the same as "It is impossible").

For passwords, the key word of course is third parties - B is not a "third party" when it comes to the operation of the User:A&B account. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the slew of false reports to UAA recently, I propose adding options to the response template that indicate that people should use another noticeboard. I created Template:UAA/sandbox for that purpose with four different new notices. I also removed the "csd" and "ep" options as a failed to see how they are relevant to UAA. Feedback? Regards SoWhy 09:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, what’s the deal? seems like there’s been a big influx of poorly reasoned reports the last month or two. It’s not any one person, just seems like there’s a general lack of awareness of the nuances of policy, as well as some users who have a very, very low bar on what is offensive.

As to your proposed additions I don’t think that reports for usernames that really belong at ANEW is much of an issue. Other than that they look good and I think they should be added to the standard set. Pinging @

talk

) 23:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a bit clueless as to why someone violating 3RR (ANEW) or suspected of socking (SPI) or plain vandal with a good username (AIV) or a POV-pusher (ANI) will be reported here!! Can you please point to some specific diffs that attest this trend? ∯WBG^converse 10:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

From my recent experience, there is [1] and [2]. More active admins, such as 331dot and Edgar181 (to pick two at random), might be able to tell you more. My proposal was mainly based on the fact that the templates used on other noticeboards include such redirect answers. Regards SoWhy 11:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

My goodness. As to the first diff, I was more concerned about L293D reporting Smurpart. he has been for pretty long and how he thought it to be a UAA vio is a mystery. As to the LTA case, such troll-names indicate they are up-to no good and a UAA block can be dealt with, as easily.Agree about the second diff, too.At any case, if the proposal curtails down on frivolous reports, feel free to proceed but I have reservations in light of banner-blindness and all that stuff...... ∯WBG^converse 12:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The new template at Template:UAA/sandbox looks good to me. I agree with SoWhy's rationale for these changes. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Once the new response type has been implemented, just ping me and I'll add it to responseHelper. Regards — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• To follow up on the above: As a long-term admin at UAA I can attest that reports of usernames that look bad but are not blockable are routinely reported anyway if they have vandalized. This is not how UAA is supposed to work. Vandalism doesn’t retroactively create a username violation, they should be reported an AIV instead. The same goes with socking. We had someone very recently reporting all kinds of socks at UAA with names that in and of themselves were not violations. UAA is supposed to be for obvious cases where the username is the primary issue with the account. If it is a secondary issue or any kind of name that is not in the “block on sight” realm it shouldn’t be reported at UAA at all and I think these new responses will help educate users on when it is and is not appropriate to report there.
  talk
  ) 21:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion about the purpose of the "confusing usernames" parts of policy. That exists to protect the project from people who create a username that can other users might mistake for an official account, or for a bot account, or it's too similar to another username. It doesn't exist to allow you to ban names that you don't understand. Someone can create the name sjacjloufniw. You don't understand it, it confuses you, but it's not confusable with another account. Another user couldn't then create sjacj1oufniw, because that risks being confused with sjacjloufniw. DanBCDanBC (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I doubt most users watching this page are making this error. If you see someone doing this its best to talk to them personally on their talk page.

talk

) 21:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"Potentially misleading usernames" would probably be a better description. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• The current policy language makes it sound as if what we would do in most cases is discuss the violation.
• It’s been pretty long-standing practice at UAA that any blatant ORGNAME that has edited gets soft blocked. It is basically the tool of first resort, due to the fact that ORGNAMEs are by far the most common thing reported there and discussing with all of them would likely be a huge waste of time whereas soft blocking only takes a few seconds.

So, since as they say policies should reflect practice, not dictate it, should language be added to the policy regarding the established practice of blocking ORGNAMEs that have made even one edit that signals a violation?

• Support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - FlightTime (open channel) 19:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Question posed misses the point the current policy advises admins to consider whether or not disruption will continue after a rename, and if so, to hard block. It gives discretion, and does not mandate anything. UAA might never have done this, but admins who work outside of UAA do all the time. Having a spam username should not be a mitigating factor to someone who could be indef’d for being a spam only account regardless of the username, as is the case with most soft blocks. There is no need to update the policy because the policy already gives admins discretion in how to act. While I think soft blocks are pointless at best and think they arguably violate the blocking policy (if they aren’t being disruptive, why block?) I don’t think we need to change anything here. Just let the UAA people know that many other admins who don’t patrol that board hard block when they see the same issues, and that is totally okay and in line with the existing policy.
  On the flip-side if soft blocks were mandated here, what’d you’d see instead is people just blocking as spam only accounts without even mentioning the username problem. Policy allows for blocks for that, and changing it here to basically prevent hard spamu blocks would just result in people picking a different policy to legitimately block under. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • But on the discussion point: I’d be fine with a change stating that org names that have made any edit that is not promotional may be soft blocked, while leaving the existing language around account creation/autoblocks the same. I still have doubts for why we would do this if not disruptive, but I’m skeptical about virtually every username block.TonyBallioni (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose not sure how this is beneficial. I do know Beeblebrox and I do not always agree on blocking. If it's spamming and an orgname, it needs a block. Beeblebrox does not always see it this way. If it's an orgname making constructive edits, it should be a matter of discretion whether or not to discuss or block, depending on the length of time the orgname has been editing, and an individualized approach should be taken. Sometimes the orgname is making constructive edits to the page about their organization. Again discretion and an individualized approach should be taken. Policy should reflect this if it does not already.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

  What MER-C said-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• To editor
  Beeblebrox: Although, I think this is overall a good idea, but it would be really helpful if you can give snippet of what should be added. –Ammarpad (talk
  ) 07:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with the above. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yup some specific wording/change proposal would be useful. I've read the proposal quite carefully and I could probably get behind it in some form as existing practice, however, some examples spring to mind: When I see a school admin create a username with their school name, and they proceed to fix some blatant vandalism that we've missed, or I see a company person constructively fix a ten-year old mistake that we've made, then reaching for the block button is definitely not the first thing I'll do - if I do anything at all I'll drop them a note, and they usually listen. I am also perpetually concerned about UAA getting flooded with 'stale reports' and users who will never edit again. I think this proposal might not want to see that, but it's an easy slip to make. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I’ve found in the past that these discussions can get bogged down with the details of every single word instead of the idea being expressed, so I thought I’d see if there was support for the idea and then the exact wording could be pounded out in the course of the discussion, but I suppose it would be something along the lines of “blatant violations do not necessarily require discussion, a report at UAA of a clear violation usually leads to a “soft block” of the account in question.”

talk

) 23:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Per my comments above, I’d support that if you removed soft. The current policy gives discretion on whether or not to make it an account creation block. Leave it that way so people can assess each situation individually and options aren’t limited. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Same here. I also suggest rewriting the problematic two lines as "Administrators may/should (not fussed which) also consider whether a user is engaged in inappropriately promotional behavior that is likely to continue under a new username or independently merits a block, and if so, enable the 'autoblock' and 'prevent account creation' features." MER-C 19:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Related discusion of block options

• See
  talk
  ) 19:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Permalink Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

  Inviting MER-C to also provide their input, considering experience and the related ANI discussion. —PaleoNeonate – 00:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braden1127 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I’m not sure that’s a blatant violation but it doesn’t matter since they were active for one day four years ago and all they ever did was create a goofy userpage, which I have now deleted.

talk

) 20:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

See (noping'ed): I am not black (

• If that's a
  dog whistle, that's an extremely subtle one. Even if they edited (reasonably), I do not see a case. None would complain about User:I am not French, even if they edited France-related topics (of course, if they added "wine-drunk baguette-suckers" to such articles, the username would be an aggravating factor in a pattern of disruption). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me}
  07:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• I think this is a dead issue, they made one extremely minor, non-racist edit nine days ago and haven’t returned.
  talk
  ) 20:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need to archive reports like NortheasternUniversity as if it were reported to UAA (as it should of been), it would'nt have been archived there either. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, then if nobody objects I’m going to go ahead and change the instructions there to reflect this.

talk

) 17:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I've recently been removing obvious non-violations from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot, per #9 of the instructions saying Obvious false positives reported by DeltaQuadBot and DatBot may be removed.; however, the page itself is in the admin backlog. Haven't found anything else determining whether or not #9 is an instruction for admins only, and therefore I should not edit it, or not. Checking page history, only bots and admins have edited it recently. Is there some instructions regarding if it is admin only that I have missed, or am I allowed to edit? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The bot just recognizes strings, it is not sophisticated enough to read the context of those strings and therefore generates a lot of false positives, so removing them is something non-admins can do at UAA that is actually helpful. Just make sure to only remove the obviously wrong ones.

talk

) 17:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Will do, thanks! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I like.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Traditionally, we have handled reports on users with mild violations and no edits by placing them in the holding pen. After sitting there for a week or two these reports are reviewed again to see if they have edited in the meantime. This strikes me as needless busywork and I would suggest we change the procedure so that adding the “wait” response to a report is considered declining the report and it is simply removed a while later like other declined reports, leaving only “being discussed with user” and “keep monitoring” as the only reports that go to holding. Having reviewed hundreds if not thousands of such reports I feel the risk is fairly low, usually if they don’t edit the day the create the account they don’t edit at all. In the rare cases where they do edit, they can be re-reported at UAA and blocked.

Agreed. makes sense. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree too. I may be the biggest "offender" in terms of moving these reports to the holding pen. I'll simply remove them from now on as if they were declined. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• I support this idea. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• oppose increases chances of spammers getting past us with spam.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

But the policy is and pretty much always has been that these names shouldn’t be reported at all. I can’t remember the last time I checked reports in the HP and found a spammer that had become active while it was sitting there, but I suspect it si extremely rare, whereas premature reports are a near-daily occurrence.

talk

) 17:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support anything that is a step towards getting this policy/application of it down to one sentence. As someone who does his best to ignore UAA, I have no clue what the holding pen is and never understood why it existed. Needless bureaucracy that makes what should be the simplest admin task (“Is this name disruptive?”) complex. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni:The holding pen is that place to which UAA reports go when no one knows what else to do with them.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That’s about right. It’s certainly a little-known back corner of project space. Anything marked “wait,” “discussing with user” or “keep monitoring” is tossed in there to languish, sometimes for weeks. (Sometimes I also see requests that have actually been rejected in there too, I already just toss those back out.) Reports are rarely followed up on by the reporting user or the responding admin. So tossing out one category of said reports would make maintenance substantially easier.

talk

) 18:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should just get rid of it?

After making my last remark I really started considering what goes on there and questioning if we should be doing this at all. The most common scenarios are:

• stale -the user has made no edits since the report went to holding anywhere from a week to a month ago. No problem to solve
• User agreed to change name -No problem to solve
• monitoring didn’t go anywhere -monitoring the users’ contributions has not led to any clarification of the meaning of their username. No problem to solve
• user was blocked in the interim-No problem to solve
• turns out they were totally a spammer -They get blocked when the report is reviewed, but really they could just be re-reported to the main page if/when they make edits that reveal the intent of the username.

I would guesstimate that only about 5% of HP reports lead to subsequent admin action. Is that enough to justify continuing to do this?

Maybe if more people knew about it more would check it. I never thought of looking. Maybe clear it out after a month of nothing.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

If we’re just pitching reports out after a set time frame without individually reviewing them that is functionally equivalent to not having the holding pen at all.

talk

) 18:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree, let's just get rid of the holding pen. If there isn't enough evidence for an admin to block, the user shouldn't have been reported anyway. If it turns out that their username (or edits) are actually problematic they can be reported to UAA (or AIV) when there is enough evidence to issue a block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Done I’m not seeing any serious objections here, and in practice we seem to have already stopped using it, so I’ve marked it historical and tried to hunt down and remove any instructions in UAA related pages about it.
  talk
  ) 17:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I propose adding to WP:Username policy#Promotional names, a third bullet point:

• See Stage names for usernames which represent the subject of a biographical article.

-- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

{{uw-memorialblock}} has been nominated for deletion; see discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It is currently not clear in the policy how we handle case sensitivity.

On one hand the policy states usernames are case sensitive (with no elaboration).

On another, the policy states (in a completely different section: "Similar usernames") that "Usernames that are very similar to existing ones cannot be registered normally".

What this tells me is that important rules regarding user names are not covered by this policy. Instead this seems to be freely up to some programmer.

It also feels fairly incomprehensible to the regular user to use this policy to answer "can I log in as capnzapp?" or "can I register Capnzapp?". (I'm CapnZapp, btw, with a capital Z)

How can I answer these questions from the policy? (Without making an attempt at actual login/registration)

That I'm blocked by some software and thus that the issue is moot in practice (the answers are no and no, I tried) mostly feels like a convenient "programmer's rule". I would say the regular user simply cannot use this policy document to understand the actual rules that govern the subject of the article! It seems like the programmers can change the rules at any time with zero oversight or feedback from here. Isn't that a problem for you?

• @
  WP:SOFTBLOCKed. Similarly, you would probably manage to register User:IHateWikipediaAndImGoingToBreakIt
  without tripping any filter at registration but you would still get blocked fairly soon.

While you have a point that better documentation might be needed, whether a case-variation gets blocked at registration ("programmer's rule") or by an admin after a trip to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names ("community's rule") after 3 edits is hardly a big difference to the end user, IMO. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that the "programmer's rule" you complain about is allowed for in English Wikipedia policy: see

WP:CONEXCEPT, particularly the fourth bullet. Anomie⚔

13:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not here to complain, I'm here to improve the associated article, the Username policy page. The issue isn't what's allowed for, the issue is whether the policy is adequately expressed/explained.

CapnZapp (talk

) 17:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This usually comes down to discretion on a case-by case: if someone wanted to use a name too similar to a common active contributor, usually it would be declined, but a request to be renamed to a name similar because of a regex to an account registered ten+ years ago with zero edits, on a different project, would likely be approved. –xeno^talk 17:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe I'm missing something.

• Usernames are case-sensitive, so User:PrimeFac is different from User:Primefac.
• The software doesn't allow usernames that are too similar, so since I registered Primefac, PrimeFac cannot be created, but it's a little fuzzy so PrimaFace would likely be allowable.

I'm not seeing where/if the policy should be updated/changed. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

There's a fairly good list of examples at mw:Extension:AntiSpoof (which is written by programmers). It's probably too much for this page, but a carefully placed link might be appropriate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Just another anecdote: several years ago I tried to register
  User:IvanVector but was prevented by the software. Judging by the user page history that was in late 2014, and I don't know if anything has changed in the four years since. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits
  ) 18:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

1. No, because Wikipedia usernames are case sensitive, but the first letter is always automatically capitalized. (source)
2. No, because The software will not allow you to register with a username that is already in use, or one that appears too similar to one that is already in use. (same source)

The technical reasons for why this happens isn't really necessary for the layperson to understand or know. If someone is told that they cannot create a username similar to another one, then ideally they won't try (unless they're trolling, in which case they'll be blocked). I guess this is where my confusion continues to lie, because to me everything is pretty well spelled-out. Primefac (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• See Hypocorism#Persian :: in Persia, the name بهناز Behnāz is sometimes pet-form shortened to نازی Nāzi . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  Anthony Appleyard, are there users with this in their name? Primefac (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @Primefac: When I found out, I thought that I would tell you in case it happens. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Morning all, I have noticed that User:HBC AIV helperbot5 makes lots of edits very close together. For the purpose of reducing unnecessary logging of actions, would it not be best to have it check every 90s or so and make all changes in one go rather than making 5 edits immediately after each other. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 07:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Both here and at AIV, it is helpful for logging/transparency/accountability/etc. to be able to see which sysop did what and for how long to which account. Combining reports would almost certainly lose that information. While I imagine there are other benefits, that alone justifies the annoyance of edit conflicts IMO. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not find it annoying but as you say helpful in seeing what happened when.

talk

) 18:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer, Could edit desc Not say something like

3 Users remaining. 3 Blocked (

User:Placeholder and User:Test / User:Test blocked User:Example2 RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)}

18:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Such as 2600:1003:B85D:2583:7584:4EFE:D204:3CEE. There seem to be a lot of these about, they pop up and they mostly seem to only get used about once for some controversial borderline-disruptive editing. What's the story with them and why can't they be blocked or otherwise stopped? 2.24.71.30 (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

These are

talk

) 20:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

How come they are allowed to get away with it? They are usually up to no good. 2.24.71.30 (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

*penny drops* Oh I see, they're IP users like myself, but with more modern IP addresses. Okay. 2.24.71.30 (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. They’re still able to be blocked, if necessary. –xeno^talk 23:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was some masking site automatically generating vandal-friendly anonymous fake WP accounts. Oh well learn something new every day. 2.24.71.30 (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• A username that is a company plus its founding year does nothing to indicate that an individual is using the account. I would really be skeptical of any number added to a company name, but especially that. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed.

talk

) 00:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed as well. A founding year in the name of the account doesn't change the nature of it; it's representing a company and implies shared use. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no obvious interpretation of the word confusing, and policy is extremely vague.

It should be explained what confusing means. Does confusing mean usernames which are misleading as to their meaning? Names that can not be read by a human? Names with similar characters to look like other names?

To remedy this, I suggest:

• defining confusing

• providing examples

• adding more context to the meaning of this rule — Preceding unsigned comment added by Multilocus (talk • contribs) 03:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I disagree. The whole point of that section is to state that not every username problem matches a clear-cut rule, but also that such names are not in and of themselves block worthy. To attempt to define it more exactly would defeat the purpose.
  talk
  ) 15:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

As I raised here, I propose SQLbot (or similar) to auto-remove stale reports as it does already for AIV. This would help alleviate or perhaps prevent backlogs where old items (perhaps there for 5-6 hours) have been skilled by patrolling admins or that have otherwise been marked with one of the UAA templates. Although I propose for the entire forum, the bot reported usernames section in particular tends to get very long at times where non-issues or false-positives are skipped vs removed by patrols and leads to backlogs that are not always quickly cleared manually. NJA | talk 11:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I feel like that window may be a bit short. DQBot generates a lot of false positives, and usually once every day or two some admin will plow through the entire list. I'd be more in favor, as discussed above, of entirely getting rid of the reports from DatBot as 99% of the time they are not violations of the username policy but rather tripping some arcane edit filter that detects socks.

talk

) 19:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

“Biotch” can be short for “Bio Tech,” or “Biological Technology.” For this reason, I believe it should be removed from the blacklist.  ⠀—‌‌  Glosome‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌  💬 21:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah... no. While there might be some small amount of use in this case, it's far and above used more frequently to mean exactly what we all know it means. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I’d be interested in knowing how many false +’s are generated first. N.J.A. | talk 13:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

While I'm sure we all appreciate the tireless efforts of the UAA bots, I feel we need to discuss this particualr kind of report. We get several of these a day, every day it seems, the report reading something like "<USERNAME> Tripped filter 579 (Possible sockpuppet account creations)". It seems to me that these almost never lead to a block. This isn't surprising since it doesn't seem reasonable for random admins patrolling UAA to know what Filter 579 does exactly. It seems intended to catch socks, not blatant username violations, so it seems more like it should be reporting to

Also dropped a notice at

talk

) 22:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

To me, the purpose of the report is for any admin having UAA on their watchlist to notice the username and block them before they do any bad edits. I'm not too sure but I think the reason I added it to UAA as well was because hits to 579 weren't handled very quickly. If I remember correctly, last time I went through some UAA reports by DatBot the usernames were either locally blocked/globally locked/one of the former + oversighted. I can't think of a good place to put them otherwise. Also, for future reference, discussions such as these should be posted to

WT:EF I believe. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs

22:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I think some stats could help to easily see things more clearly. We need answer to something like What's the percentage of users blocked out of all those reported by the bot for a particular period of time.? – Ammarpad (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping for a bit more input here from regular UAA reviewers... I don't know that we have stats. I do belive that a lot of these accounts end up blocked or globally locked, but I'm not at all sure that being reported at UAA is how they are getting caught, because again, sockpuppet investigations are not what admins are doing at UAA and these reports are generally allowed to sit for a day or so and then are just removed because we don't know how to evaluate them. "Possible sockpuppet creations" is completely unhelpful without further context.

talk

) 17:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You can always take a look at the log. I think any utility of these reports should be obvious within an hour or two. Like many reports, just take a quick look to see if there's an obvious username issues, or if they're doing vandalism or something obviously 'sock-ish', and if not don't worry if they're removed. Most of the relevant hits seem to be obvious attack or impersonation usernames. However, like a lot of filters, this particular filter could probably benefit from some severe pruning to strip out the false positives. I think if working efficiently, UAAB is a valid place to report them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The log tells me exactly nothing that the bot report doesn't. It just says "possible sockpuppet creations". No context, no identifying the sockmaster, no reason why there is even a possible username violation, which is again, the only thing that UAA is for.

talk

) 19:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Noting for the record here that I have just solicited input from BAG on this matter. [3].
  talk
  ) 19:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Propose review of bots making UAA reports: I agree with

As an example, today, after blocking the most obvious names (maybe 2 or 3 and removing a few stale reports) there’s still 14 reports. A review of the bots reporting here and the rationale for them doing so (i.e. are they really username policy issues and how many results in blocks for that reason) and or having a bot (such as SQL bot - as suggested below) to remove stale reports would be appreciated. N.J.A. | talk 14:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Role account. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. funplussmart (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the

Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask this, I'm fairly new.

^LetUs_NotLose^HearT 23:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

In a word, no. This has been discussed elsewhere (and this isn't the right forum anyway) and it's an exception to the letter of the rule. Primefac (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Although I suggested myself consistency with ISU, indeed, the office is not subject to it. —PaleoNeonate – 00:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. What would the right place to ask that sort of question be?^LetUs_NotLose^HearT 02:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

There isn't one. The WMFOffice account is explicitly allowed. Primefac (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Primefac I mean a question about something that seems hypocritical or doesn't make sense, not further questions about this same subject. ^LetUs_NotLose^HearT 02:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

If it's a question about ISU itself, then here would be good. If it's a question about a specific username, it should happen at

WP:AN. Primefac (talk

) 02:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

While I'm sure my one sentence policy is unlikely to ever occur, this page desperately needs to be simplified to a principles based policy rather than a rules based one. In it's current state, it's basically just an invitation for admins to IAR everything related to usernames. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue? Any specific examples where a block citing username seemed ridiculous because the edits, etc were OK? I agree the policy is a bit long winded, though I can’t think of how to criticize it without examples. Also, IMO the bot and user reports at UAA may be a factor. There are reports about username policy even where no edits have established a problem with the account. Monitor UAA for a few days and the block log citing username and provide examples and let us see what stands out. N.J.A. | talk 02:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The immediate cause was my standard frustration at every discussion that is ever brought to

CAT:RFU you'll find plenty of username blocks that clog up both the unblock queue and the need for renamers.

My personal issue with it is that username blocks are almost never in line with the principles behind the blocking policy unless they are somehow causing disruption. Soft username blocks for promotion are almost always unjustified and just waste time for reviewing admins, global renamers, SPI clerks, and CheckUsers. At the same time, we've had contentious RFCN's about whether or not a troll face username technically violated this policy.

Going towards a more principles based approach moves us away from a hyperliteral reading of everything on this page, and also makes it easier for new users to understand what is and isn't allowed. This page is theoretical supposed to be read by them. If I can't figure it out (and I can't), I doubt any new user can.

I did a very rough draft here of a slimmed down username policy that is easy for admins to follow, encourages discussion when something may be controversial, and protects non-Latin usernames given SUL. I'm sure there are tweaks to be made or principles to add, but it really should not be the case that Wikipedia:Featured article criteria is easier to understand than what is and isn't allowed for a username. TonyBallioni (talk

) 02:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether what you're proposing amounts to an actual change in the how the policy is enforced or just a simplification of how it's explained on this page - I am assuming the former, so that we're less heavy handed softblocking promo usernames who betray themselves with one good faith COI edit or whatever. I support simplifying this page in principle - it's become horribly complicated as a result of the modus operandi on UAA evolving over the years. Just bear in mind that some old habits will die hard if this is supposed to change how all admins behave - I have found declining to block borderline cases on UAA quite pointless as there is always some other admin who will block them. To your draft, I would at least change the "attack or harass others" point to something like "be divisive, inflammatory or contain personal attacks", something a little broader. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 06:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed that "something must be done". However my main concern is cases like
  talk · contribs) / Draft:Warwick Economics Summit, also last week we had Soundgirls (talk · contribs) / SoundGirls
  .

Do we want these articles here at all? They meet

WP:N

, and yet our perpetual action is to block their creators with extreme prejudice and to speedy delete the articles. All based on their choice of username. Which, as we know only too well, we don't even make clear to new editors. In particular, admin action on such accounts is to block first, then to do everything possible to get rid of this offensive new editor.

At no point do we apply any sort of AGF. We give them no opportunity for explanation, for discussion, or to request a rename. We act as if every editor is a team, then use a policy based on being against teams (rather than COI) to block immediately. Yet there's no indication that these are teams! In nearly every case, they're just one individual in an office who was given the job of writing something up on WP.

We are reacting utterly wrongly to these new accounts, and their work. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Just the other day I stumbled upon guidance from a PR agency known for their transparent and ethical work on (some language editions of) Wikipedia and they state «Due to a discrepancy between rules governing the Wikipedia in German and the one in English, verified company accounts allowed in the former, can be blocked in the latter which forbids them». Such catch 22 (whether real or perceived) do not serve anyone. An ethical company with a decade of experience doing Wikipedia things should at least be able to tell its customers how to register accounts for its employees (or not). Nemo 13:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Why are user names like:- Sohom ⁴⁵⁷⁸⁹ being allowed to even register. And, how to even type it? ∯WBG^converse 06:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything in UPOL except UNCONF which is a catch-all.......∯WBG^converse 07:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

These are actually using Unicode, which falls under

WP:SCRIPTPLEASE. --Izno (talk

) 13:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And how, goodness knows, is one to type "Winged Blades of Godric" using that weird little red symbol thing you got there at the beginning? Isn't the pot saying something untoward about the kettle? A loose necktie (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

One is

@Marchjuly: I can't imagine a file extension being enough on its own to violate username policy. They're probably more "safe" than .com names as, while non-promotional .com names are possible, very few company names have a file extension in them. I'm not sure there is written policy on it, but I'd strongly favor allowing them. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I apologize that my bot has been down for four months. Apparently a job got stuck on the server and new versions of it were not allowed to run. That said, anyone who doesn't see my bot in a few days, please flag me down so this doesn't go unnoticed for 4 months. --

There is a discussion that may be relevant for watchers of this page at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_18#Template:Uw-uall. Your input would be appreciated! --Trialpears (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi all. Has anyone noticed many dozens of such names appearing in the creation log the past couple of days? Any thoughts what this is related to? Usually for events the log states “created for xxxxx event” etc., N.J.A. | talk 10:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

NJA, they're Wikipedia's very own neutrinos. They blow through each year since 2013 and don't interact with their surroundings - Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:BQUB. The only response I've seen is at User talk:BQUB15-Agarno#Cholesterol 7 alpha-hydroxylase, "we are students of Medicine of the University of Barcelona and we are doing a Chemistry project in which we have to improve the information about one topic on Wikipedia.". On past form, none will last beyond 10 days, and they'll all be gone in 3 weeks. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, glad I asked ;) , N.J.A. | talk 13:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This came up recently when I was commenting on UAA - are there any rules on non-admins marking usernames as "not a blatant violation"? Just from watching the page, I've almost exclusively seen that posted by admins (with non-admins usually using the comment template), but I can't find an explicit rule on the matter.

I'm not sure there's much written down about the practice, and you'll find a slightly more liberal approach at UAA than AIV. There is a brief relevant instruction in this header on the page. What I would say is don't get it wrong, and try to stay clear of anything controversial. If you're disputing a user-reported name, this is by definition probably controversial, but feel free to add any other comment. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I'd figured, I appreciate the second opinion. I'm going to stick to things that are clearly allowed by policy, like real names or the "X at YCorp" type, and will stop if/when someone fusses at me for it ("Be Bold" and all that).

talk

) 23:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Are there recent instances of non-admin declines? My understanding is, and point 7 of the header linked to seems to confirm this, volunteers (admins or not) can remove non-blatant reports so I cannot see why they should not be able to mark it as non-blatant? This of course requires the person declining the report to be competent in the username policy otherwise they will certainly get grief from the person who made the report and possibly others. Therefore marking a report not blatant is conditional, which makes answering your question trickier, but as zzuuzz says feel free to comment and if it’s truly a poor report that fails to meet at least the several conditions in the header, then mark it as such, N.J.A. | talk 14:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a policy to point to here, but I will say I find that this is not particularly helpful. The reason is that, a patrolling admin will still need to look for themselves at each report regardless of such comments. I've been an on-and-off regular at UAA for about a decade, so I get that there a decent number of bad reports on any given day, but I think generally, unless someone is making really, really bad reports its best to just leave it for the admins to deal with.

talk

) 16:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

talk

) 21:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think Beeb (hopefully that's an acceptable nickname :) is saying you should not feel free to comment that e.g. a report is unlikely to be a blatant violation. What could become an issue is non-admins both declining and removing reports made by others. That could lead to abuse and arguments between editors about the quality of their reports and declines by non-admins, etc. I don’t think anyone wants to complicate policies or guidelines, saying that however, if it’s unclear, and after some more consensus, perhaps e.g. point 7 of the header (and

WP:UAAI) could be made clear to say e.g. not to remove reports made by others without some admin input first, N.J.A. | talk

01:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Mmm'kay, well given the above then *I* won't say a thing about these, but I'll be interested in how they are handled. :) Shenme (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

looks like the person making those reports isn't very familiar with this policy, or

"Wikipedia:AIVU/BOT" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

"Wikipedia:UFA/BOT" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

"Wikipedia:AIVU" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

I just started a discussion at WT:Blocking policy#Impersonation blocks which may be of interst to readers of thsi page. Please read it and offer your views. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

What's the general policy on usernames that use some "famous" person's name, but not necessarily in a way that implies they're actually that person? Does that need to be reported or not? For example, User:Jimbo's Consicence.

I would say case-by-case basis. But also note the discussion linked a few sections up that is -kind of- o this point.

talk

) 04:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Oop, I can't read... Thanks.

talk ⋅ contribs

) 21:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 79#Feedback request - bot to maintain CAT:UAA and similar categories * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• {{Uw-spamublock}}
• {{Uw-softerblock}}
• {{Uw-causeblock}}

Had a RL discussion yesterday about the message our blocking templates for

What tends to happen now is that the user registers the organization name, (or the name of their PR agency working for that an organization) makes a draft or edits an article on that organization, and then gets blocked and told either it's because of their username or because of their username and spamming. The message they tend to get, whether intended or not, is "change your name and it's cool". And by the letter of our policy, this is true, at least for soft blocks. The issue is that if they go ahead and register a new, policy-compliant name, we no longer have that easy identifier that lets us know they have a

So what I'm suggesting is that we modify these templates to suggest they use the <name>@<organization> format. I'm not suggesting exact wording since every time I do that someone else has better wording, so I'll leave that to ya'll should we decide to do this. Thoughts?

I think part of the issue is the soft blocks you mention above, I have seen them used on editors who are strictly named after their organisation and are strictly either creating drafts or userpages on their company, or editing the article for their company in a blatantly promotional way. Perhaps the softerblock block template should only be used when an editor with a orgname is not blatantly promoting in their edits. For example this editor got a softerblock template after their userpage got G11'd [4]. I don't think they were here to do anything else, and although they didn't try a username change, it could have sent the wrong message. Agent00x (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather that how to set the blocks was a separate conversation as that is more likely to be controversial, and we discussed how to word all of the orgname block templates in this discussion.

talk

) 19:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%,

WP:ORGNAME I post a message encouraging them to choose a "Mark at Alcoa" type name, but it would be much better if the default templated messages did so. (And I really would prefer encouraging them to do so, rather than just mentioning it as a possibility, but either would be better than the status quo.) I also agree with Agent00x about the use of the different templates, but Beeblebrox is right in saying that should be a separate conversation, for several reasons. JBW (talk

) Formerly JamesBWatson 21:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A bit tangential, but does anyone have a feel for how productive the "Mark at Alcoa" editors tend to be? That is, how often do those contributors make useful edits outside of their COI area? I'm all for encouraging the username changes, but in my (very limited) experience I've pretty much only seen COI contributions out of those sort of editors, and I'm not sure if that's something to encourage.

talk to the boss

) 21:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, yeah, they certainly tend to be

talk

) 23:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest just using a similar wording what is included in {{uw-coi-username}}. Agent00x (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I like that idea, seems like it could slide right in to these.

talk

) 17:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Randy in Boise

Could I please request an admin's attention at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#Randy in Boise? This is not urgent. HLHJ (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

This seems resolved, but in future I think the best venue to raise a non-urgent username concern is in fact at

WP:RFCN with no need to leave a notice here, N.J.A. | talk

15:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

User names with the equals sign

Hi, everybody! Recently I happened to fix a minor problem with linking to a user with the {{

U}}) here: Special:Diff/934088243

. The problem arised from a destination username containing the 'equals' sign — the template syntax uses the '=' sign for parameter 'name=value' definition, so the username containing it gets decomposed and then abandoned, because the 'name' obtained doesn't fit a template parameter.

Shouldn't Wikipedia explicitly discourage using the character in usernames? Of course we can't forbid it, as there already exist accounts with '=' (as the example above shows), and we can't just invalidate or rename them all...

Possibly those users can be notified and asked to start a renaming procedure. But I don't expect many of them would do that.

Maybe the reply-to tool, mentioned here: Special:Diff/934087828, could be enhanced so that it will add an explicit parameter reference 1= to the username, when the username contains any non-alphanumeric character...? --CiaPan (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: Edge case you should entertain fixing. --Izno (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not an issue with the {{reply to}} template per se, it's a known documented feature of MediaWiki's template parser that if any template uses positional parameters, and it is desired to pass into such a parameter a value that contains an equals sign, then either the parameter must be explicitly numbered, or some means of escaping the equals should be used. Thus, either of the following will work:

{{reply to|1=7&6=thirteen}}
{{reply to|7&6=thirteen}}

This is a perennial issue with such users, of which 7&6=thirteen (talk · contribs) is just one (but seems to be the one at whom the finger is most often pointed); there is a note to this effect at User:7&6=thirteen#If you want to ping me. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry to cause anyone distress. I've put comments/directions on my talk and user pages, and even a link to your edit. I am not about to change; if you insist, you can watch me exit. No doubt there are those who would think that a fine idea. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: All of the above is quite well known to me and I know how to handle the situation (as you can see from my fix, linked at the top of my entry above). That's why I asked about a possible fix in a reply-to tool, to help less-technical users avoid the problem when answering to 'equal-signed' users. --CiaPan (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
P.S. I tried to not link the 7&6 user, precisely to avoid making an impression I point at them (and to avoid a reaction we can see above). CiaPan (talk)

No harm, no foul. 7&6=thirteen (☎

) 13:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

change a username due to an error

when creating the account, I meant for my username to be lowercase-only, and while reasoning—being habit and aesthetic reasoning—are more likely to be dismissed, and the request to change dismissed as bothersome and naive (as may or may not be expected of a very new use), I hoped to know if it is still possible to alter the capital g in my username, Gaeneric, with a lowercase one.

tl;dr: I wondered if it is possible to request an aesthetic change to the username, namely, change Gaeneric to gaeneric.

thanks in advance for any response, and apologies for any inconvenience and the lengthy text. Gaeneric (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:CUSTOMSIG. 331dot (talk

) 15:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

(

WP:NCLOWERCASEFIRST for instructions. Primefac (talk

) 15:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

thank you very, very much! Gaeneric (talk) 06:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Unified log-in

A user is a fan of the activities of a certain organization, and has already used the initials of that organization as his username in other-language Wikipedias, seemingly without having brought any complaints. He seems entirely benign, and doesn't pretend to work for that organization. However, he has made (entirely proper) edits relevant to the organization. However benevolent and amicable he may be, his username seems to be a clear violation of policy here. Yet he's unlikely to do much editing here, and if he abandons his username here then either he does so everywhere or his unified log-in breaks down.

What to do? One solution (?) might be to say: "Just go away. Don't edit en:Wikipedia any more; or, if you must do so, then don't do so when you're logged in." This seems extraordinarily unfriendly. Another might be to have him write a clear and conspicuous disclaimer on his user page. Would this be sufficient? Any other, better suggestions? (In particular, have I overlooked any comment about what to do when en:WP username constraints seem to clash with a username used uncontroversially elsewhere in the Wikimedia Encyclopedic-Industrial Complex?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It's been a long-standing problem I've always wondered about, that never got resolved because there haven't been any major flare-ups yet. Personally I feel like if we're going to do SUL properly, local username policies should be banned just like local renames, and a username is either acceptable on all WMF wikis or acceptable on none. Anyways, what ballpark number of global edits are we talking about here? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Uhh . . . I was hoping that nobody would pose that sensible and obvious question, because although I know there's a way of looking up how many edits SFCCF has made anywhere/everywhere, I've forgotten where to look and right now I can't even think what I could read in order to find out where I should look. (I'm disinclined to research: I'm busy in (sur)real life: additional work demands caused by the pestilence.) Terribly sorry, but could you please answer your own question; or, better, provide a link to the page (and I know there is one) that presents the numbers? -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It would be difficult to determine global acceptability as there are so very many languages to consider. I imagine that many of them have at least one short and simple root more or less corresponding to [excuse me!] the English word fuck, and whereas the latter has a very small number of variants ("fucking", etc), we know that many languages have jungles of inflections, etc, arising from their roots. And that's just the one meaning; there are of course plenty of others that we don't want. I'd be very surprised if "Hoary", "King" and "Hearts" weren't at least potentially offensive, in some language. -- Hoary (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention to some regional dialects like "tabarnak" - French for tabernacle but it is a profanity in Quebec French. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:RFC/N to keep the username here. –xeno^talk

03:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Just the link I wanted: many thanks. I've given advice in my talk page; I hope it goes down well. -- Hoary (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: For future ref, go to the user's contributions, scroll to the bottom where you will find a box of links with the icon at its left. Look in that box for the word "Global", and the links after that offer a variety of statistics. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Redrose64: shall do. -- Hoary (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that even our policies do not seem to completely agree with each other on how to deal with role accounts.

WP:ISU

has is that it's the username itself that must contain this declaration (e.g. "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", "WidgetFan87", etc.). I think the community has some discussion that needs to take place about what a better interpretation is.

My understanding of usernames implying shared use is that it's forbidden primarily because it's an attribution issue, that each edit any account makes needs to be attributable to a single individual for the sake of our

licensing and for community accountability. The fact that there may be potential COI is a separate, although not often unconnected issue. But IMO I can't see a problem why in the not-entirely-hypothetical case that Hoary shares that the user in question should not be able to continue to edit under their current name, provided that they explicitly disclaim that they are not connected in any official capacity to that organization, especially if SUL is added to the mix. bibliomaniac15

23:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Where can I find a list of already-in-use names ?

The Create User Account has a (help me choose) link above the box for entry of a user name; it links here. The piece of help I actually need is the "I'm bored with trying to come up with a name that's not already in use, show me which names *are* in use so that I can hope to have some chance of finding one that isn't". Absent that piece of help, creating a user account is a great way to waste a lot of time. While not strictly part of the username policy, it's a crucial piece of supporting information, that should sensibly be referenced from that policy – particularly given that this page is the target of the link I mentioned above. – Eddy 84.212.132.95 (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Well, there is Special:ListUsers, but its use is fairly limited; you would need to search for the username you want. What would be more useful is if the user creation interface did not require reloading the page before saying the intended username already exists; I assume from the above that it is not the case. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the best technique is to use Special:CentralAuth, as it pops up quickly with the global name list when you type something. Special:ListUsers only give local users. Search for a name: if it isn't there you can use it. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Special:Contributions will do the same - pretty much anything where the result is based on a username will auto-fill the possible options. Primefac (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Ah but that doesn't list global names without local counterparts; for example User:Jules1 is listed at Special:CentralAuth/Jules1 but not at Special:Contributions/Jules1. Only unique global names can be chosen at account creation. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

TfD: uw-botuhblock

talk ⋅ contribs

) 07:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Defunct organizations

I'm curious to know if the

WP:ORGNAME rules apply to real-life organizations that are defunct. Also, I'd like to know if it matters whether the organization was notable or not for this policy to apply. The example I will cite is Draft:Gentle Fire, edited by the user Gentle Fire Group (which might be a sock, but that's a separate issue). --Drm310 🍁 (talk

) 15:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I hate cases like this. There's no right answer if the entity was marginally notable, even moreso if it has been defunct for decades. Although it looks like another admin disagreed and issued a hard block, which seems a bit excessive to me, but I'm aware not everyone shares my views on username blocks.

talk

) 21:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Usernames violating the BLP policy

Right now we say Certain disruptive and offensive usernames (such as those containing contentious material about living persons, or those that are clearly abusive towards any race, religion or social groups) should be immediately blocked by administrators and suppressed from logs by Oversighters to protect Wikipedia and the subjects involved from harm. Requests for removing attack usernames from logs should be reported to the global Stewards team for evaluation and private removal from all WMF projects. I found this confusing -- I clicked on reported and had no idea what I was supposed to do there, so I came back here and clicked on suppressed from logs, got to Oversight, and sent an email from there. Am I supposed to also be doing something over at meta? —valereee (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, that's a pretty bad choice of link for "reported"...so the place to request global locks is meta:Steward Requests/Global, which says If the account name is grossly insulting or contains personal information please contact a steward privately in #wikimedia-stewards or email your request to the stewards OTRS queue at stewards(at)wikimedia.org but do not post it here. So there's your answer (pop onto IRC or email the stewards), I'll update the policy to be more clear. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Should we maybe also throw in a link to

talk

) 21:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

lol 'pop onto IRC'. Your estimation of my technical know-how is overgenerous. :D —valereee (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Emailing OS is the fastest way to get enwiki names suppressed, so I'd say do both. Also agreed that the existing link isn't great. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please change my user name.

Please change my user name. From (its_dark_rishi ) to darkone97 Its dark rishi (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:CHU for instructions. Primefac (talk

) 15:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Would this username violate WP:BLPABUSE?

Apologies if this is not the right place to ask, but would the username "Commissioner

ping

when replying. 06:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

User page looks like article: Red Shogun412

I was uncertain about this, as Red Shogun412 (talk · contribs) has decent mainspace edits, so I trod lightly and simply left them {{uw-userpage}} on their talk page. Should I have {{db-g11}}'ed instead? About 1/3 of their edits are to their user page, and all of the recent edits. Not sure what to do, here. Mathglot (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed that by their own claim, they are a minor (17 y.o.); should I customize or remove the template, and maybe just say it looks too much like an article? Mathglot (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I added more of an explanation below your templated notice, explaining the specific part of the guideline they're running up against. It's not a great idea to have detailed personal biographical information on your user page, but if they put it there themselves then I don't think it's violating policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector:, thanks for adding that. Since then, they've cut the page way back, and it looks fine, now. Mathglot (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

False positives for Cyrillic

I just removed Дювайц лобюжё from

π, ν

) 06:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

No this is actually a feature meant to stop people from using foreign accents to evade filters. so anything listed at User:AmandaNP/UAA/Similar will flag and throw that. Sadly it's just a side-effect. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The UTF-8 encoding is D0 94 D1 8E D0 B2 D0 B0 D0 B9 D1 86 20 D0 BB D0 BE D0 B1 D1 8E D0 B6 D1 91 and bytes of value D0h occur eight times. I guess that's what the "multiple similar characters" relates to. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Aha, so the filter is reporting "multiple similar characters", but it isn't looking at characters if it is reporting that for repeated D0 which have no separate meaning in the context of UTF-8, it is looking at bytes (octets). Seems like the fix is to get it to look at the right encoding. (Only here because I was at the house next door, peered across the fence and noticed an interesting-looking party going on...) Mathglot (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Spacing

This has probably come up before, but is there anyway we can leave a space between entries? The current format plays Hell with my dyslexia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, are you sure you meant to comment here? What do you mean by space between entries? --Izno (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

But this is the page it redirected to. (sigh) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, what page are you referring to then? --Izno (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You have a choice of 25. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention The spacing between the entries, or lack thereof, runs them all together. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The spacing is inconsistent, and parts of it (particularly the bot-reported section) are in breach of

WP:LISTGAP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 09:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see this at the time, but I am in total agreement that the default should be to space entries. I often do this manually when replying just to make things easier to navigate.

talk

) 07:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree. A space (empty line) between entries in UAA and AIV makes things easier, esp when crowded, -- Alexf^(talk) 09:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

But what and where are these spaces? I have been given a link to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, but nothing more. Perhaps somebody might include a diff of an edit where these spaces are used, and indicate exactly where they my be found. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's me adding one at the bottom of my comment. [5] They are not there by default when reports are added by automated tools, or bot reports.

talk

) 00:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Redux

I'd still be interested in seeing if we can come up with a consensus that this would be a good thing, so we can show that to the Twinkle devs and bot operators and male it standard practice.

talk

) 05:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Spacing is not appropriate per

WP:LISTGAP. --Izno (talk

) 05:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The manual of style is not binding on internal administrative processes.

talk

) 05:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Erm, the page is related to accessibility which is in at least one pillar. So, yeah, it might have a "MOS" on the title but it's relevant everywhere. --Izno (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

UAA is not for the general public, it is for internal administrative purposes, and you've got administrators saying the lack of spacing is causing an accessibility issue for them.

talk

) 05:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Shrug. You won't find consensus from me. I suspect RR64 above thinks similarly. --Izno (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

OK. So by "spacing", it is actually blank lines that are being described; in which case, it's a definite No. Accessibility applies everywhere, it is not something that you can opt out of. If you don't believe me, ask either RexxS (talk · contribs) or Graham87 (talk · contribs), both also admins. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:INDENTMIX, perhaps you can explain to Graham87, who is an admin and is blind, why he has to put up with all of the garbage that is emitted from his screen reader

when editors (or bots) misuse list markup in that way.

Anyone adding a comment to

description lists and the reopening of six levels of new description lists (which is what a completely blank line does). HTH. --RexxS (talk

) 20:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, it's the raw text in the edit box that makes my eyes jiggle. Other notice boards leave a gap between lines in the edit box without hindering readability of the displayed text. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: does a single character (or just a few characters) not help the jiggling almost as much as a completely blank line? If you look at how I've spaced this comment, it wouldn't cause a problem for Graham, and if it helps you, wouldn't that be the solution we should be promoting? --RexxS (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I think so. Yes thanks/ --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I never claimed to be an expert in how screen readers work, if a solution that simple solves both problems I'm all for it.

talk

) 22:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Isaacl/On wikitext list markup includes a brief description of how wiki list markup affects screen readers, though it focuses on not changing list types unnecessarily. Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks has a longer description. isaacl (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I'm Graham87 and I approve this message. Graham87 02:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'd like to proceed with asking tool devs for Twinkle to have it do this by default. So, just so we're all on the same page, what we would want to ask is that when adding new reports, at the bottom of each one the tool would add a line with a single asterisk to provide spacing between reports while avoiding any accessibility issues. Does that sound ok to everyone? Should we also ask that the response helper script that many admins use be set to post above this line (assuming that's not super hard to code) in order to keep reports coherent?

talk

) 22:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

This should be live now. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please change my user name.

Hello is there anyway to change my user name from SeanRMull to IrishLad13  ? Id rather not use my name. I did not think about this when I signed up. That mistake is on me. Thank you

talk

) 21:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

See

WP:CHU. Primefac (talk

) 21:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Can there be a way to hide certain particularly revolting usernames as in SRG?

There are certain usernames that should definitely be hidden such as the attack username currently in UAA saying that someone should be burned alive. When reporting a username to UAA, hiding a username should give a placeholder text saying "name hidden" as in

talk

) 01:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is an example of "hard cases make bad law." Normally, such usernames are blocked very quickly and often every edit where it appeared on the page is

talk

) 23:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@

talk

)

I'm not actually familiar with how that works, could you share an example?

talk

) 08:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@

talk

) 16:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@

Beeblebrox: re something weird has been done in the logs where it doesn't even show up as registered name anymore, my naïve guess would be that it's globally locked and hidden, or "locksuppressed" as GeneralNotability puts it — although I'm a bit surprised that would hide it even from oversighters. —2d37 (talk

) 10:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@

talk

) 22:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@

talk

) 22:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I personally don't hate it, but as I indicated above I'm having trouble picturing exactly how it would be deployed here on a very active board like UAA. For general tips on RFCs, I'm always happy so shamelessly promote

talk

) 23:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If we're talking Twinkle, there could be an option added to hide username if reporting to UAA is selected. You're right that it wouldn't cover all instances of folks reporting names since some people (for whatever reason) still prefer to do it manually, but I suspect it will cover 90% of reports. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 02:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 02:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

the username that just got blocked... that is... entirely unhelpful, especially since there are no block records that would imply such an issue. Primefac (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 02:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Reporting a user with inappropriate username

Please take action on this user User:NaaraThevudiyaNayanThara. This user has cuss words in Tamil language in their moniker. I would ask someone to take action against this user. Tagging User:SpacemanSpiff as I believe you understand Tamil. Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• The appropriate place to report such names is
  WP:UAA. Can you explain this name though, as I do not speak Tamil? --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 03:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The literal translation is 'Stinky Prostitute Nayanthara'. Nayanthara is a name of a popular Indian actress and the user possibly directing this profanity to her. You can confirm this with admins who can understand Tamil. I will report this name to WP:UAA. Thanks for the direction

Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

what's the deal with this talk page?

I can't be the only one who has noticed that new users somehow regularly wander in here and start spamming or otherwise posting things that don't belong here. It's worse here than any other policy page I have watchlisted. I can't imagine that brand-new users are just randomly typing "Wikipedia talk:Username policy" into the search bar, something, somewhere, is pointing them in this direction. I just don't know what that something is.

talk

) 21:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@

Beeblebrox: Maybe the "help me choose" link at Special:CreateAccount (comes from MediaWiki:Wikimedia-createacct-helpusername)? Suffusion of Yellow (talk

) 21:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You would think that's responsible for a lot. On the other hand, there's quite a few older accounts editing this page, accounts you'd think are well beyond the signup page. I don't know, but there are other pages that probably see worse. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, it just seems so odd that it's so frequent here. (just happened again)

talk

) 00:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible mistake in the info frame

Please verify if a doubled 'another' in the point 4.:

(...) usernames that contain another another editor’s nonpublic personal info (...)

in the orange frame at the top of Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention is correct. --CiaPan (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I fixed it here. Best, DanCherek (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek: Thank you. :) CiaPan (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Does UAA bot ping the reported users in edit summary?

(Courtesy ping AmandaNP) — genuine question because I'm not familiar with bot coding syntax, but I noticed that when reporting to UAA, DeltaQuadBot seems to use edit summaries that include [[User:AccountName]], as in this example. I'm guessing that comes from line 183 of this script (latest commit in 2015). But in 2018, an update caused edit summaries that contain [[User:AccountName]] to result in a ping to the user. Am I reading things wrong, or have all the bot-reported accounts, including the false positives, been getting pinged to UAA? Best, DanCherek (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Most likely they are pinged to UAA. I don't know about the waitlist because i'm on my tablet. People have asked for just the block button before, so maybe it's time for a quick modification if this goes uncontested or has support for the change. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! I was thinking that it could potentially be a little alarming for the false-positive users who just created an account, but I'd love to hear what other people think. (Also, it looks like something similar was happening with the waitlist until May 2019, when the edit summaries started going blank for some reason.) DanCherek (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Flagged bots cannot ping from the edit summary. See m:Community Tech/Ping users from the edit summary#How it works. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I should have read that page more carefully! Good to know, thanks. DanCherek (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Addition of “personal info" to UAA header

@

Steve M: Regarding the addition to the UAA header: can you clarify what kinds of personal info you are referring to, and provide the policy or other source of consensus on this? "Personal info” is vague and seems likely to cause confusion. For example real or stages name are types of personal info, but these are specifically allowed by policy. Thanks for clarifying, N.J.A. | talk

12:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:OUTING another editor or otherwise providing non-public information about them (something like "GeneralNotability's Real Name Is Bob Dole" or "Call GeneralNotability @ 605-475-6968"). Concur that it could be worded better. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss

) 14:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Linking to

WP:OUTING and/or referencing the harassment policy might be a better option. Primefac (talk

) 14:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 16:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

talk

) 16:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that makes it more clear, yes. Primefac (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I clarified a little further and I feel the reference to a. username with nonpublic personal info of another editor is clear to those using the forum. Thanks, N.J.A. | talk 12:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:OUTING, which was identified above as the source for recently adding this restriction to the UAA forum header. Is the message a user must go to oversight and can't report a username at UAA because it includes voluntarily given personal info, like the real name of another user? My questions are what mischief is trying to be addressed in the header, and what’s the source in policy for it, and how can we best communicate that in a clear way to users? Thanks, N.J.A. | talk

12:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@

talk

) 14:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Satirical usernames

Currently, I am attempting to have a clean start per

WP:CLEANSTART, and wish to create an account with an obviously satirical username; however, I am unsure of whether such a username would be appropriate or not, granted how this is Wikipedia and not a more laid-back wiki. Are usernames such as "Sockpuppet of an autoconfirmed user" generally acceptable here on Wikipedia or no? Thanks! 74.59.96.110 (talk

) 17:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the username would be permitted, provided it was "sock of <your actual old account name>" as opposed to claiming to be someone else's sock, but, obviously that is not a clean start at all, so still not a great idea.

talk

) 23:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning "sockpuppet" in your username sounds like a fantastically bad idea, regardless of whether it's allowed or not. I think something less obvious like "Second Time Around" would be fine.

π, ν

) 23:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Not only is it a fantastically bad idea, we have a filter actually preventing the example you provide. It would attract an extraordinary level of scrutiny and much distraction. It will also date very quickly. Be inventive by all means, but my advice would be to keep these kinds of message to your user page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately perhaps, User:Sock is already taken. :( BilCat (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You rang? Sock (tock talk) 13:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Just in case you might want to jump in on the convo. BilCat (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

DeltaQuadBot down?

@AmandaNP: DeltaQuadBot has gone for over 34 hours without adding any new reports, which is way longer than its usual several-reports-per-hour (this was the last one at 15:51, 25 March 2021). Did something get jammed up somewhere? It also stopped editing the waitlist at that time. The bot's SPI and UTRS tasks appear to be functioning normally. Thanks. DanCherek (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Ya those two tasks got caught up in the gridengine outage on toolforge. I didn't know tasks got stuck. I'll file a phabricator task and link it here if I don't get a response in a short bit on IRC. I can't seem to resolve this on my own. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it's up and running now! Thanks again. DanCherek (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2021

This edit request to Wikipedia:Username policy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Can I edit Tiktok , Snapchat, Twitter, Instagram, and reddit, for a making more people use it. Ulimatecrimsonflash (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ulimatecrimsonflash: I do not understand what your question has to do with the Wikipedia username policy. Would you please rephrase it. Peaceray (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ulimatecrimsonflash: No, you may not promote those or any other websites. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You may not have a user name that is that of a website --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

69420

Block on sight or leave polite note? Assuming no vandalism from user. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't really see the need to even leave a note for the user because I don't feel that a "69420" username on its own makes harmonious editing difficult or impossible (though not sure if others may feel differently). In other words, to me these accounts are purely an AIV issue, not a UAA one; often 69420 is more of a "ha-ha silly meme" thing than someone intentionally trying to reference sex or cannabis. I know the bot reports them because they're likelier to be vandalism accounts, but even in those cases they're often already reverted and sufficiently warned. DanCherek (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It's nuts how many times a day we see these accounts. My impression is that it is usually teenage boys, because who else would find that so very funny, and they make one or two edits, often vandalizing, and that's that. I was actually considering asking for the bot to stop reporting these. We suffer from "

talk

) 19:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@

Beeblebrox, agreed. It is not unambiguously offensive. While it certainly isn't the ideal username, I don't think it by itself is clear-cut enough to block without edits. If more admins didn't succumb to the "monkey see, monkey do" condition mentioned above, then people will be more experienced at UAA. @Deepfriedokra, if the user made no edits, then don't leave a message, as a ton of accounts are made every day that never edit. If the user has edited but not vandalized, then maybe leave a polite note. If the user has vandalized, then treat it as an aggravating factor in the decision to immediately block. aeschylus (talk

) 21:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Whatever admins feel is appropriate to be taken off the list can be taken off the list, I have no objections to that per User talk:AmandaNP/UAA/Blacklist#Instructions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• This by itself isn't a problem, might appear to be a US zip code(postal) to someone not in the know, but I do see it used with more clear references to sex or drug use. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• So, I feel like we have a consensus to remove this from the blacklist, so I'm going to go ahead and do that, hopefully without breaking anything.
  talk
  ) 17:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Add an option to hide abusive usernames

So basically, with the recent rise of LTAs and other malicious users that are using highly inappropriate usernames, I am wondering something. Basically, in Steward Requests/Global, you are able to hide the contents of a username by leaving a placeholder. This can be userful in a number of ways. For example, it draws admin attention to highly offensive usernames, and it makes it harder for unsuspecting users to see the usernames. Basically, this can help in the case of usernames that are going to be hidden from logs and other usernames that should not be seen. Thoughts and ideas? I started this a while ago but retired before I was able to advance discussion too much. aeschylus (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI: Something like this was discussed fairly recently at Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 25#Can there be a way to hide certain particularly revolting usernames as in SRG?.

talk

) 17:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, if a username were that offensive, the edits by that user could be revdel'ed and have the username suppressed when they get blocked. That also means any reverts of the user get the edit summary suppressed because it likely contains the username. —C.Fred (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@

Beeblebrox, yes, I am the same user. I just began this thread again because there was a rise in abusive usernames recently. aeschylus (talk

) 18:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on how to advise new users choosing their username on the signup page

 You are invited to join the discussion at

MediaWiki talk:Signupstart § Protected edit request on 4 September 2021. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

08:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)