Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Clerking

So what gives? The whole page is littered with {{nao}}'s. How does it assist the Administratura, who will only go and double-check anyway :p _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@FIM I guess it's somewhat useful? I've noticed it's picked up quite a bit here and at AIV. The only "annoying" thing I've seen is when {{uaa|w}} is used on a report where the editor has actually edited but been disallowed by a private filter (as these won't show to most non-admins). Such reports could then be swept aside when actually they could do with a block -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't use the NAO template. It's not like my comments are of any less value because I'm not an administrator. Zero^talk 12:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Patient Zero: Your comments aren't, no. However, many of the templates give the impression that the request has been declined, and declining should only be done by an administrator. Omni Flames (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Omni Flames: given that I've read the username policy, I would consider myself more than capable of pointing out non-violations. Zero^talk 12:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

It does seem that the page is being used in a different way from what the "Important!" box says. If the box is outdated, it should probably be updated to describe the current system. If the box is still accurate, it could be made more explicit, to try to avoid non-qualifying submissions.--Yeryry (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If you look in the archives, you will find that the idea of non-admin "clerking" has been discussed before and thought not to be needed. Removing obvious false positives from the bot and reviewing all the old reports in holding are much more useful things non-admins can do instead of leaving comments, which, as pointed out at the beginning of the thread, admins will have to review for themselves anyway. It's not that your comments are wrong or annoying, it's that admins are accountable for their actions and as such they have to check for themselves before blocking anyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I should add that other welcome tasks for non-admins would be removing declined reports after they have sat for a reasonable period of time, and moving anything marked as "wait" or "worth keeping an eye on" to the holding pen. This reduces clutter and makes it easier for everyone to see what still requires attention. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd posit additionally that tagging vandals might also serve beneficially as that big yellow triangle with an exclamation point serves to draw attention of admins to more problem users. Quite useful as these are slightly more high priority than other editors. Plus some of the non-admins on this page also get users to change their name and thus clear the job before an admin gets to it. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Foreign language/script usernames

So, I've seen a few reports lately of promotional or shared use usernames in other languages, the prime examples being these two

• 中央人民政府外交部 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
• המרכז ללימודי השואה (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)

I'm honestly not sure what to do about these. Is a username really a blatant violation of the English Wikipedia username policy if the username is only understandable as a violation when someone takes the time to translate it into English? I'd love to hear what other administrators think about this. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I tend to block usernames which are offensive in any language, for example Путін псяча залупа бля (talk · contribs · block log) wouldn't normally mean a thing to most people. However the same problems exist in any language. These two usernames I would be inclined to softblock them, as shared accounts and/or purporting to represent whole organisations, and ask them to choose a new username, if reported. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Not that it really helps resolve this issue, but noting for the record that i just tossed both these reports ut of the holding pen because neither of them ever edited. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The holding pen

I used to be a regular here but haven't been lately. I've just spent some time dealing with the backlog in the holding pen, it is now up to date. However, I am seeing a lot of recent reports that have been put there without any comment or reply. Traditionally, this is not how the holding pen is used. It is only for reports marked as either "wait until the user edits" , "discussing with user" or one of the "it's worth keeping an eye on" messages. I don't see how it serves the project to just toss reports in the holding pen without addressing them at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I am also finding that reports are being filed under the day someone decided to move them into holding. Because there is a timing aspect involved, reports should be filed under the day they were responded to with "wait" or whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

EpicMan's reports

EpicMan as you are a new user with less than 100 edits I'm taking the time to inform you on the UAA talk page that reports of editors should only be made where the editor has actively edited in the past 2-3 weeks. You've made three reports of editors who appear to have never edited on the encyclopaedia. Wait until the user edits. applies to all of your reports. Additionally you have an uncanny level of knowledge for a new editor, have you edited previously as an IP or under a different account? Mr rnddude (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Weird issue with renamed account

Moved here from main page Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• ArtisticCapitalInc (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – Violation as promotional and implying shared use. Weird situation -- user talkpage is redirected to another user. Maybe they intended to abandon it? But there has been recent editing. - Brianhe (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

User has changed their username. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: Something is weird here because the rename was in 2011, yet this shows recent editing from the original username. - Brianhe (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Brianhe: Not sure what's up with that...I'll ping the other global renamers and see if any of them know what's going on. @K6ka: Any ideas? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I've seen this before, once an account is renamed it is possible to re-create the old name and start using it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I would say that's what happened here except for the fact there's no entry in the user creation log. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ok that's officially weird then. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Time for a mass ping: @Bishonen, Boing! said Zebedee, Céréales Killer, Cyberpower678, Jianhui67, K6ka, Keegan, MusikAnimal, and PhilKnight: Any ideas on what's going on here? I haven't come across anything like this in my (brief) time as a global renamer. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I do not understand what is the problem. There is no tracks of any renaming of this account. This account has been created on January 23rd 2013 and there is no request for any renaming. I am not a number (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The user talk page has been renamed in 2011... Very strange! I am not a number (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

If you check the user creation log with "ArtisticCapitalInc" in the Target field rather than the Performer field (in case a different user account created it), all you get is this, the creation of the original account before it was renamed. There's no apparent record of a second creation of ArtisticCapitalInc after the first creation was renamed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the account. Regardless of how it was done, the username is a blatant violation. Moved this here so discussion can continue without being removed by the bot. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This rename was done before global renames became a thing. Back then, when we had SUL but not global rename, all renames were performed locally, and doing so would detach the local account from the rest of the global account. I presume that's what happened here. ArtisticCapitalInc would appear to be the old global account; if you look at Special:Log/LawProfessor, the timestamps for the creation of both accounts are exactly the same. So my guess is that "ArtisticCapitalInc", created in 2011, was renamed to LawProfessor, but got detached from the "ArtisticCapitalInc" global account in the meantime. "LawProfessor" is now its own global account, but the old global account remained, and the user probably logged in to that global account, visited the English Wikipedia, and recreated the account. We didn't get global renames until July 2014. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If that's the case, then why isn't there anything like Special:Log/Drake Nattramn in the log? If the global account were logged into and the user visited en.wiki, creating the account here, then it should create a log entry like the one in my example. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: Maybe things were different back then? I don't know; the ye olde time before global rename was a confusing one for everyone. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Mass-ping @Bishonen, Boing! said Zebedee, Céréales Killer, Cyberpower678, Jianhui67, Keegan, MusikAnimal, and PhilKnight: (Sorry! Just wanted to point your attention here to let you know that the discussion had moved) —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Users who have only edited drafts or whatever

The last time there was a serious discussion of this supposed exemption to the rules consensus was that it is not an actual exemption. The feeling was that spamming is spamming and soft blocks are not particularly harmful. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Linguist111: Please note the above, and also, from that same rfc consensus was that admins have some discretion when deciding whether to block names with no edits whatsoever. I am willing to do it in the case of hate speech or severe BLP violations, but I don't have to and I'm getting a little tired of being countermanded by you. The community has given this job to administrators because we are expected to use our best judgement and act accordingly, not because we are policy-following robots with no ability to think for ourselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

From my memory, today and yesterday were the only two occasions on which I did anything to "countermand" you. I have my opinions and you have yours, and that's fine. I thought it's common practice to block offensive usernames on sight regardless of whether the users have edited or not, and in my opinion that's what should happen, but if you don't see the necessity in doing so, then that's fine. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 19:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see the section up the page abut clerking. there are certainly things non-admin can do on this administrative page to help, but substituting your own judgement for an admins isn't one of them. For example, when you say you "feel like a name is a little promotional" after a report is declined, but apparently can't describe what is actually being promoted, that's not helpful. If you wanted to do some actual clerking, such as removing older declined reports and moving anything tagged "wait" tot the holding pen, that would be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of the holding pen, I noticed it is currently jammed up with a large number of reports you decided to respond to with discussion rather than letting admins do their job. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand I get things wrong, but if you disagree with me, why not just decline the reports and remove them anyway? Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 22:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, you are not helping with all these "discussing with the user" when the names are a blatant violation. You are taking something simple and making it complicated. When an admin sees a blatant violation they can issue a soft block and 95% of the time that's it, problem solved. When instead, you decide to open a discussion, then it has to be put in here, held for a week, and then re-checked to see how it turned out. I'm assuming you are honestly trying to help out with backlogs but in reality this is not helpful at all and I would ask you to please stop doing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The username policy says that for a username to be blatantly promotionally, there has to be something in the edits that connects to the username. It also says a username shouldn't be reported just because it looks promotional. The ones I discuss usernames with have made edits that don't have this, and are therefore not instantly blatant. If you want to soft block a user, just go ahead and do it, regardless of whether a "Being discussed" note has been added. As a matter of fact, when I started my work here at UAA, reporting usernames, I was unaware of the "don't report just because it looks promotional" rule and would report every name that looked promotional, edits or no edits, and a lot of my reports got "Wait" notes. And now when I add "Being discussed" notes, you come along and say that's not right. And I must say you're being quite personal with all these "sigh", "groan" and "crappy clerking" edit summaries. Are you trying to get me to stop clerking at UAA? I'm sorry, but I'm not going to stop. I will continue to decline requests as I see fit, and you or any other administrator may block whoever you feel has a violating username. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 21:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You know, this isn't a particularly rewarding task for admins, and you are not making it any better with your replies.You added eight of them in the last 24 hours. Your actual reports of usernames seem fine for the most part, but, again, (and I have provided you with links to where there has been a consensus established on this issue) UAA doesn't have clerks. People who self-assign themselves to a non-existent job, and then reject the advice of people who are doing the actual job that the community appointed them to do are not helping.

I was trying to get you to see what you were doing wrong and hopefully focus on doing things that actually help, but apparently you insist on doing the job nobody is asking for anyone to do, because you have appointed yourself to that role. So yeah, at this point I would rather see you confine yourself to just reporting usernames instead of muddying the waters since you apparently don't understand how crappy it looks when we tell someone "let's discuss this" and then block them anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to do whatever I like on Wikipedia, as long as it adheres to policy. I've been working at UAA for the past few months and I enjoy it. I've been modelling my clerking on that of the admins that frequent UAA, and I don't plan on stopping any time soon. A while back, while discussing the username policy and UAA with another user, I said that it's often better to engage in discussion with users with non-blatant violations rather than just letting them be blocked, because it gives them a chance to quickly request a username change to avoid the risk of a block. Meanwhile, username blocks can deter users, because if they want to keep using their account rather than starting all over again, they now have to provide a reason for why they should be unblocked, and in general blocks can drive users away. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 22:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC of interest to all regulars here

See Wikipedia talk:Username policy#"Official" accounts representing individuals as opposed to groups. Any and all input is welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to update on this, the only consensus I can see is that names like this should not be reported or blocked unless it is clear they are representing a group or organization and not just an individual creating their own "official" account. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Do not report a username unless it has been used in the last 2–3 weeks

This does not make sense. If the user has made edits they are sitting in the revision histories. There is a BLP username violation in List of performance poets history for May 20, 2016‎. --Bamyers99 (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That account was active for two minutes six months ago. Why nobody reported it at the time is hard to say. Simply blocking it will not remove it from the editing history. That being said, the username policy, like all other policies, is to be treated with common sense and the occaisional exception. I'll deal with that now. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Something's gone wrong

The bot hasn't been removing the blocked users the past day. Has something gone wrong with the page syntax or something? Linguist^talk|contribs 02:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Paging @JamesR: — xaosflux ^Talk 02:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)