Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

How it works

In principal, this works the same as AIV, in that users can add names to the list, admins review it and either block or remove the report, anything slightly controversial can go to WP:AN. AIV helperbot could (if we ask HighInBC nicely) remove blocked usernames automatically, whilst non infringements can be manually removed by an admin. All username violations could go through this new alert board. The key thing is, that is specifically states should generally only be listed if they have begun editing, it's pointless listing otherwise and just wastes time. Feel free to make any changes to the main page, or simply say it's a pile of crap! We just need to come up with a fresh idea in case RFCN gets deleted Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 14:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I know some people are going to disagree with the "has begun editing" part, even though I feel that's critical for eliminating some of the problem reports seen recently at RFCN. I'm thinking that part will have to be changed before a consensus agrees to it, but we'll see how it goes. Leebo ^T/C 15:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? People in blatent violation can be listed and/or simply blocked (without editing). Borderline cases that have not edited at all cause no problem to the encyclopedia. People listing them need to be hit with a cluestick. Repeatedly if necessary. The driving factor should be "do not create work where work isn't necessary", in my opinion. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that it's my personal opinion, and my personal way of handling borderline names -- waiting to see if they're actually going to edit. But that's not something we need to enforce, rather simply recommend to people who do it repeatedly. But yes, it's true, I keep links to possible problem usernames and check back every once in a while to see if they're actually going to edit. Leebo ^T/C 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, this needed to be done. I can add this page to the list my bot services with ease. I will do that now. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is done[1]. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I leave you in charge of setting all the bot parameters e.g. back log tags and what not? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The current settings should be okay. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Will this board comply with WP:U's provision: "If the username in question only may infringe on the policy, please discuss the name with the user in question before taking it there." ? Note: this provision was previously clearer when stated as: "The starting place to discuss a questionable (but not clearly inappropriate) username is on the user's talk page, suggesting that they change their username. Remember that users may not be native speakers of English, and may be unaware of causing offense." RFCN's instruction likewise read: "Before listing a user here, contact the user on his or her talk page and bring their attention to the problem and Wikipedia:Changing username. You may wish to use {{subst:UsernameConcern}} for this purpose. Do not list a user here unless they have refused to change their username, or continued editing without reply." UFAA has a much weaker direction: "if not a blatant violation, then only list here if the user has begun editing, and consider discussing with the user before bringing it to adminstrator attention." Consider? But perhaps never actually do it? So each user with a questionable name may find himself blocked without ever being given the option to change his name voluntarily and avoid the block log entry? This seems less upfront and more biting than the status quo ante RFCN, and I see no good reason for that change. I'm very unhappy about that, and oppose the change. The importance of talking with the user first was repeatedly stressed in discussions, and this proposal appears to have disregarded it. If that change is an inherent part of this proposal, then I oppose the proposal. Frankly, I don't see the benefit of it. The collegiality of Wikipedia is dependent on upholding one-to-one discussions as the first step of Dispute Resolution. If instead our first step is to report each other to noticeboards and admins, that emulates an entirely different kind of society. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My concerns

Good initiative but I have a few concerns. First, if this board would work like WP:AIV, with requests being removed as they are processed, there is really no room for discussion at all. Therefore, I could see this replacing WP:AIV for username block requests, but not helping as much for cases that need more discussion... except that this one has the clause about accounts that should be editing. So it seems like, as is, this would just create a third venue beyond what we already have: for vandal / blatantly inappropriate usernames, go to AIV, for other ones, go to AIV/U, for cases that need discussion, go to RFCN or ANI or wherever else. Mangojuice^talk 20:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest using this board for all username issues, enough admins can watchlist it, and discussion can still be had, but minimally like AIV at present. It would certainly take the burden off AIV. Usernames which some users think may infringe on policy, can be quickly evaluated by an admin and blocked or removed, without the need for further comments. Maybe scrap the WP:AN suggestion, and revert to your proposal of the new process for RFCN. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, 2 issues with the proposed idea:

1. The name implies that the board is more for Administrator decision, instead of Admin reporting of Blatant usernames, Community discussion of borderline usernames.
2. The link you have created in the new abuse links templates has "usernames" listed under "editing abuse"... which is what I thought were were trying to avoid, a biting page name, but also, a biting concept ("Good faith, but bad username" = "Editing Abuse").

Just my concerns. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 19:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Short discussions can still be held, but AN/I can used for the very few cases which aren't obvious. We don't need a great big community discussion as happens on RFCN too often. It is for reporting usernames to really, as I said, there can be a few comments, but then the admin decides. What section would you suggest putting it in in the abuse links template? That is a very minor point that a user isn't going to be aware of, usernames that are against WP:U are an abuse of policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If this is adopted, it can not be listed under editing abuse, simply because it isn't. Usernames issues are not problems with editing, they are problems with account creation. I propose it is listed under noticeboards (perhaps centre the Editing abuse(ie top) line to distract from the fact one line will be longer than the other.) GDonato (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Like this? GDonato (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah thats looks fine to me, I'll change it on the to-do list. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done Ryan Postlethwaite 19:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to mention that I do quite like this proposal, if cases where admins were unsure were reported to WP:AN(I) then there should be no problems. GDonato (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this intended to replace WP:RFCN or augment it? If the latter, there should be a reference to it on the page. Right now it looks like there are proposed to be four pages that deal with inappropriate usernames: AIV, AN/I, RFCN, and here. That's enough to make my head hit the desk. One or two maximum, I beg you, please! --MCB 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• This would replace ALL (one-stop-shop), as I understand it some controversial ones could still end up at WP:ANI GDonato (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Basically, all username problems come through here. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, just to confirm... you thought process here is to replace WP:RFCN and the use of WP:AIV for usernames with this page, and having it work like AIV (Username comes in, admin decision comes out). Minimal discussion. Those that an admin feels should go to discussion (and I don't see why they would, for many if it's not blatant enough to block right there, it's OK), then it's sent to WP:ANI and mixed with all other Incidents requiring Administrator Attention. My main problems with this and many of the other ideas to pacify everyone regarding RFCN is the following:

• This new process removes much of the ability for community discussion, and somewhat restricts it from editors who do not understand that ANYONE may comment at an Admin's noticeboard page.
• The current setup does not give a reporting editor the option to call a username for Community Discussion OR Admin decision, but by default gives it directly to the admins. Such a setup will allow admins to completely ignore and bypass the discussion phase on usernames based on the frequently stated opinion by several admins that "if it is not blatant enough to block right away, we should leave them be".
• If you don't believe that the previous point is the case, what safeguards have you designed to prevent this board from becoming a quick and easy way for Admins to simply bypass community discussion because, in their mind, it is a "waste of time" and a "center for policy wonks".

Any discussion on how to keep this from really being a 'wolf in sheeps clothing' as far as the removal of community discussion on borderline usernames? CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 05:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Process confirmed, this replaces both AIV and RFCN, it is the sole place to report usernames. True, as you say, there would be minimal discussion, but there are very few usernames that require any discussion at all, most can be left upto the discretion of the administrator. What you seam to forget is that this noticeboard will be manned by admins that have an interest in usernames, probably the best people to understand the username policy and they will make a policy decision when a name comes here. with regards to non blatant usernames, if the username has been discussed with the user first, it can still come here - maybe a short discussion - a few comments, then an admin decides to block or allow and informs the user either way, without having to get into massive discussions as to "what if it means this?" or "what if it means that"? RFCN was there soley to allow comments to guide administrators on whether to block or not, this board can do the same, but hopefully without the pile on it fails this part of the policy. With regards to safegards, if a username is that big a problenm, it can always be brought back for a fresh look, or it can be taken to WP:AN/I as it states in the header text. Hope this clarifies things. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the concerns Cascadia had brought up. But the decision has always been the admins. And just like any admin decision it is responsible to the community. If a user disagrees with a block there is a procedure at WP:BLOCK, discuss with the admin, if you cannot find agreement go to a larger audience at WP:AN or WP:ANI.

The community decides what usernames are acceptable at the WP:U policy. When to place a block or not has always been an admin only decision, influenced by community input. Regarding point 2, a user need not report here, but may have a discussion at the users talk page, or with an admin, or at ANI if they feel the name needs more than a little input. Regarding point 3, if there is a lot of discussion surrounding a report on this page, then it can be moved to ANI, just as AIV would do with a disputed or complicated vandal report. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 12:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand the decision has always been the admins, and I understand that Ryan states that this board will be manned by admins who have an interest in usernames, however, given some of the comments by admins at both MfD's and on RFCN itself it has become apparent that there are admins who simply wish to not have any discussion on any usernames at all, instead leaving that decision solely with the admin to make. I certainly hope that this board will not be used like that. I personally will monitor this board myself to check that it does not come to that (I'm not trying to be an ass about this).

If I may make one suggestion, Ryan, it may be beneficial to include instructions for anyone seeking an advocate from The AMA to go there and look one up. I will arrange notices on my userpages that I am open and available for anyone who needs an advocate in a username process, and I will attempt to specialize in that. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 22:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

OK I certainly like this page as a replacement to reporting usernames to AIV. As you are intending it to be for all usernames though, how will this fit in with the result of the RFCN MfD given that there's currently little consensus there to close it down? Will this page just go live alongside RFCN if it is kept, or will there be another RFCN MfD to gauge opinion with this new alternative available? Will (aka Wimt) 18:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If the MfD is kept, I'll propose a merge, but this idea has consensus on WP:AN and WT:AIV. There's no point in running another MfD because if this is something we can discuss on WT:RFCN. We certainly shouldn't have both WP:RFCN and WP:UAA. My concern at present is that since this proposal was put to the MfD, there have only been 2 comments, yet as I've previously said, strong consensus is to have this page used instead of RFCN, but at other locations. Any idea's of what to do? I considered closing the MfD myself so we could get on with sorting all the template out, but that would be wrong, and I'd most probably get shot! Ryan Postlethwaite 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm yeah I agree that there's no point going for another MfD. As far as the current one is concerned, I agree that it should be closed now because much of the discussion there has been largely superseded. I think you're probably best not closing it yourself, if for no other reason but to avoid flak! The problem with the current MfD is that it can't really be closed as delete, based on the discussion there (even though much of the discussion is largely irrelevant now). I guess someone could close it as no consensus and then propose a merge at RFCN. There's no easy way of doing it whatever though! Will (aka Wimt) 19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on the comments, I believe it would be closed as keep. If Ryan is set on having this replace RFCN and we can tweek templates and such, I would be all for closing the MfD as keep or no consensus (whatever wording you choose) and immediately going for Request to Move. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that closing as a keep or no consensus is fine and that proposing a merge afterwards would be in line as well. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A thought

The page does not say how to report a username (which template etc.) could you please clarify? GDonato (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Click edit this page on the main project page and all will be revealed! For clarity however, its;

*{{Userlinks|Ryan Postlethwaite}} - Reason the username fails the username policy. ~~~~

Ryan Postlethwaite 19:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah OK, I would maybe like to see it in the orange box, (picky, I know). GDonato (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Name

This seems like a good idea AFAICT.

The "for" of the name seems awkward to me, but I can't at the moment think of a phrase that works better. How about just Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Usernames ? - jc37 06:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we really need to keep away from the use of the term "Admin" or "Administrators". The current use is not great, but it isn't incredibly bad either. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 13:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not really a noticeboard, it should function more of an alert board, I'd personally be happy to rename if thats the consensus, but my opinion is that this one is fine. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't the last name reported gets removed even after its blocked and the comments removed and if someone reports a name which is already at WP:UAA..why does it add it again and merge it unlike the old method where it refused to add it because the report was already present?..Just trying to improve this new Project..--Cometstyles 17:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If your talking about the bot incorrectly merging reports earlier, that was due to the reports being in a format very far from the AIV format proposed, and the format described in the instructions on this page. The same goes for it failing to remove the header, while removing the comments. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed board

Is Twinkle reporting names here instead of AIV? As this history is ridiculous considering reports shouldn't be made here at the moment. I'm all in favour of this board but we shouldn't use it until it's actually active. Will (aka Wimt) 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I firmly believe that the report username function in TW needs to be disabled permanently. I don't use the program, so I don't have any clue on how it's used, but it seems to cause problems. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It was problematic but it was simple and Editors who are trigger happy(like me) manage to use it quite well but the 'new' TWINKLE is a bit tricky and it does have some minor glitches..--Cometstyles 18:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If it just required that a person manually enter a reason it would be a lot better, we could hold people accountable for their reports then. AIV gets loads of bad reports too, they made a template for the talk page of users that give improper reports too often. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could modify {{uw-RFCN}} ? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle?

Twinkle is already reporting username violations to this page. I don't see what's left to discuss, so why don't we go ahead and begin the "process"? Of course, if I'm missing something, the page could always be protected. Sean William 20:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah we can go ahead, there's a link to my to do list up above somewhere, any chance you can do the honours? I've got no internet connection. There's a few templates to change and what not (RFCN MfD could do with closing as tag as historical aswell) - see my to do list though! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

By my calculations the AN header, RFCN tag and RFCN MFD are still left to do. GDonato (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle/AIV Helpberbot conflict

When people use Twinkle to report usernames to this board, the username is added under a fourth level header. However, when the user is blocked, the AIV Helperbot doesn't remove the header. (example) Either one could change to avoid this problem: TW could avoid headers altogether in favor of a ";", while the AIV helperbot could be altered to remove the heading. Either way, the code will have to be modified by somebody. We'll have to decide what solution we want to pick. Sean William 20:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A notice has been left on AzaToth's page (earlier today) about changing TW, as this is probably easier than changing the bot. GDonato (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, AzaToth has now changed twinkle to report as on AIV, it's just going to take time for users to purge their cache or restart their comps. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right :-) GDonato (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Excellent. I just saw GDonato's TW report go smoothly. Sean William 21:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/suggestions

Could someone let this page know to change reporting usernames should go to WP:UAA? Don't forget to mention the format it should be reported with. Also, could someone let WP:AN know the change? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done GDonato (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Status of RFCN

Given that the MfD seems to be heading towards a keep concensus, how do we reconcile this board with that one? Should contentious issued still be refer to RFCN (rather than ANI)? WjBscribe 21:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The can be a prosed merge. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a proposed merge. But since it won't be good to have people reporting at three places (UAA, RFCN and AIV), I suggest that we suspend RFCN for a short period and proceed with the new system. I know there will be unhappy people no matter what. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 23:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about the proposed merge at WT:RFCN if you want to voice your opinions. Will (aka Wimt) 23:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Kill it. We don't need more and more small "community noticeboards" as they have a notable tendency to become insular fiefdoms, whatever the best intentions of the creators. Ryan, fergoshsakes read WP:PRO - every line of it is from painful experience of what happens to what sounded like good ideas - David Gerard 02:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore David's comments and propose we suspend RFCN for a trial period of WP:UAA. This way, if WP:UAA falls flat on it's face or turns into a bigger mess than RFCN, it can easily be recreated. AFTER THAT, it should be marked historical. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 02:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My major concern

The instructions actively discourage any kind of discussion, or even comments. I'm fine with the idea that username violations which take imagination don't need to be blocked, but that doesn't mean that we can say "there is no need to disagree with other people's reports here". In fact, that would be the exact opposite of what it should mean. -Amarkov moo! 02:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur, and High, this is the type of thing I referred to as stifling or limiting community discussion. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 03:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

How about this page has 2 sections. Initial reports, simple cases, brief discussion if any and Reports under discussion where an admin who rejects a report as borderline or is not sure and wants more input can move a report from Inital reports. ie:

Initial reports

• Willy on Wheels is my god (talk · contribs) - Username too similar to vandal username. Random User 1 04:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reports under discussion

• Willy the Whale (talk · contribs) - Username too similar to vandal username (Willy on Wheels (talk · contribs). Random User 2 04:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Report moved for more community input - not too similar IMO, but I would like other opinions. Viridae^Talk 04:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not close enough, appears to be good faith. Random User 3 04:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What does everyone think? This promotes discussion where needed, but doesn't waste time with the majority of reports. Viridae^Talk 04:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

An improvement, but I would like to add the stipulation that an editor can add a note under a report requesting that it be discussed (providing reasoning of course). CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 04:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea Viridae and I agree with Cascadia. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 04:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think this is good. It combines the AIV and RFCN onto one page, without (hopefully) all the votiness that drives/drove people to distraction. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good proposal and one which I have suggested before myself (see here. GDonato (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Example of above suggestion:

Initial reports

• Willy on Wheels is my god (talk · contribs) - Username too similar to vandal username. Random User 1 04:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I request this be moved below for discussion, as this is very borderline and may require discussion. EstablishedEditor 04:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Admin's response Yes, or no.

Yeah thats doable, but if the admin just blocks it, the helperbots (I hope) will remove it. If the admin moves it to discussion I don't think they need to put a formal "yes" or "no" its pretty obvious that the admin agreed. I'm just saying that I like this as far as how lightweight this is, lets try to watch the instruction creep. :)—— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that saying YES when moving it to the discussion area is redundant. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 13:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• This sounds very similar to something I proposed at the MFD: see User:GDonato/UNP GDonato (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

questions

Why has UAA been removed from the white bar where links to RFC and AIV are housed? Also could we have a link to UAA below that to AIV that is found on the special page after you block a user? Furthermore, should UAA bee linked to in the {{unb}} template? Just some thoughts... SGGH ^speak! 10:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it was removed from the white bar because this noticeboard is only proposed at the moment and hasn't been subjected to a full discussion. That discussion is now going on at WT:RFCN though. Will (aka Wimt) 10:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A question

There are two reports Jenerate (talk · contribs) and Greggggggg (talk · contribs) that have remained for some time. Is this because the admins are unsure, if so it's a bit concerning that we have two that may need discussion already. Perhaps a solution like that above (2 sections) is needed. GDonato (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Logically, the two sections should exist. This is supposed to replace RFCN for most discussions (save the most monstrous and heated). CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason reports are hanging around here for so long at the moment is because there aren't (m)any admins actually watching this page as it stands, what with it only being proposed. However, I do agree that we should implement something on this page that facilitates discussion, else it wouldn't be much of a replacement of RFCN. Will (aka Wimt) 15:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying but tens of reports have passed and been dealt with whereas a couple hang around- this may be due to the fact that admins are unsure and are too scared to block or remove- then again I may be wrong. GDonato (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

True but note that just because users that have been reported here are blocked, it doesn't mean that they are being blocked because they are reported here - the admin could have noticed that username at any number of other places. Of course they may be though! Clearly some admins are watching this page, but not nearly as many as AIV at the moment (as you might expect). Will (aka Wimt) 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem

If we have say 2 headers, username reported and username for discussion, the username for discussion header is removed by the bot if the username directly above it is blocked, apart from that, I have serious concerns; this means the page is just as bureacratic as RFCN if we have the discussion part to it, it's also way too much process for a simple issue, I think we would be far better off removing usernames that need dicussion to AN. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well yes and no. If we make it that there isn't any discussion and usernames are only blocked or not blocked here on the basis of a decision of one admin, then we risk this page just becoming a slightly more trigger happy fork of AIV. Of course, many of the reports will be blatant and those certainly wouldn't need discussion. However, for borderline cases, not including any discussion here and deferring them to AN would mean this isn't really a replacement of RFCN. Plus at both MfDs, particularly the most recent one, a lot of people have stated that they prefer RFCN as a forum for discussing usernames as opposed to AN for a number of reasons, not least that AN has far too much going on as it is already. Now segregating this page, as has been suggested above has many advantages over the current dual system of AIV / RFCN. Most importantly, there wouldn't be any discussion here over reports that clearly didn't need any, as discussion would only begin if it was identified as borderline and not clean blocked or dismissed altogether by an admin. This page would therefore also be better equipped to cope with the greater influx of reports at RFCN recently, which RFCN isn't really suited to by design (it becomes rather crowded). So I think that this page would be better than RFCN if implemented so as to allow discussion, but I wouldn't be convinced if it was introduced as a username fork of AIV. Will (aka Wimt) 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Ryan, when you proposed this you specifically stated it would be a mixture of RFCN and AIV, and that is why many even considered going along with it. If a discussion here gets too lengthy, then it should move elsewhere, but for some discussion to take place on an overcrowded board such as AN or ANI, those discussions will get lost in the chaos. The bot needs to be tweaked to not delete anything below a certain type of heading (and TW needs to be tweaked to not use headings, although my preference is to not have the Username Report function at all in TW). CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 17:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I just posted at WT:TW about having the heading function removed. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the header function may have been removed from the latest version of TW but it won't take effect till everyone has restarted their browser / cleared their cache. Will (aka Wimt) 18:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as the discussion goes, it seems to be running just fine right now. This page is in rather active use, just check the history. Its running much smoother, and does not seem to have any errors that I can spot so far. The discussion section may or may not be needed, I'm willing to try this either way :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why?

I'd like one at least one person to explain to me why we just can't use WP:AIV for obvious violations (WoW, racist,ect) and RFCN for disputed ones? Can anyone explain why that's so hard? -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 00:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This was actually started to take over username functions from AIV; I'm not sure why it's morphed into this. -Amarkov moo! 01:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did we need to take away username functions from AIV? It's a 5 second decision by an admin whether to block or not, and a bot clears it away if it's blocked. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Some blatant username infringements are good faith so they shouldn't be labbeled as vandals, AIV get bogged down with non existent usernam violations, RFCN is way to bureaucratic and gets too many names that aren't against policy, here we can block or remove and move on. Also, the bot functions here as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This sounds exactly like how AIV worked before. You still haven't explained why we need a new page (and it takes only a few seconds for any admin or even an editor to remove bad reports). -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Good faith username violations are note vandals, so why should they be labelled as such, even if they are against policy? This page is here to stop clogging of AIV, we can still have short discussions on usernames, but without vandal IP's getting lost in the discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like the PC people who got HBC to code in the userlinks template after someone complained about using {{vandal}}. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Userlinks can be used on AIV as well, as it always has been, but that point aside, AIV is for vandalism, usernames aren't vandalism, people who have an interest in usernames can concentrate on this page. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a redundant waste of our already stretched resources of admins. I'll let other admins concentrate on this then. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Royalguard11, this is more a way to pacify the Slash and Burn group wanting to delete RFCN, and the people from RFCN who did not want things going to AIV for the bite. Even though when it was proposed it was supposed to be a combination of RFCN and AIV, it has turned into AIV with a little possibility for comment. I'm not sure why it was decided to turn it into just AIV for usernames with a different name, which was what those of us working to keep RFCN from closing were hoping to avoid. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 02:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually you can note on the page, I've requested some comment on one of them :) This does save the issue of having a "case" on each name, which lets the easy ones go by without much fuss, and the more difficult ones to be (hopefully) discussed and figured out. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is only what we make of it, if you want to comment on a name just do it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that I can only get a response out of people after calling it a waste of resources is very, very sad. Take from that what you will. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 05:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm... really, this page has been under active discussion you know :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a fair shot at fixing the problem with AIV, and there certainly is one. I go on and on about how AIV is incorrectly used for username violations, people are getting tired of my complaining! Lets just give it time to iron the kinks out and see how it works :) SGGH ^speak! 09:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Gray Bar Placement

Thanks High for activating UAA in the gray bar... although I thought we were going to not have it under "Editing Abuse". Logically, it appears 3RR would be under editing abuse. Perhaps we could swap the two? CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 00:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That was not my addition to that template, but I do agree with your suggested placement, I will move it now. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy with how this turned out

Just want to make a note that I'm happy with how the merge discussion turned out. The good faith is preserved in not labeling usernames chosen with good intentions as vandals, and any that need real discussion are brought to a Request for Comment page open to all and labelled as such. This may be one of those shining examples of the wiki-community making a decision. -M^ask? 06:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Going slow

It took me almost a full minute to click why "Puppet with a sock" was a violation", having just banned "cock rammer" and "pussy rammer" it wasn't in the mind set to clock sockpuppets *rolls eyes* :D SGGH ^speak! 20:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Shocking - that's all I'm saying! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 11:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Is there any update on getting UAA linked to on the special "blablahuser" has just been blocked? The page with the links to the talk page, contribs, block logs and AIV? It's nice to be able to zoom back to AIV after blocking someone, and would be nice to get to UAA the same way without navigating :) SGGH ^speak! 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that would probably be a good idea, wouldn't have a clue how to implement it though! Anyone was to move in and enlighten us? By what your saying I'm guessing the page you come to directly after you've blocked the user? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You want to visit MediaWiki:Blockipsuccesstext, i think GDonato (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Got it one without being an admin (what do I win?) GDonato (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha, Might change it tomorrow, but I've got a strong feeling I'll be shot at by a large number of people if I do! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOLD? GDonato (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added it, lets see what happens. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hows everyone finding the page?

Right guys, we've had this page active for a couple of days now, hows everyone finding it? Are there any teething problems or things people would like to see? It's certainly reduced WP:RFCN traffic! Ryan Postlethwaite 20:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have dealt with many names very efficiently without incident. I think if we keep RFCN for cases needing dicussion, and leave AIV and ANI out of it then these 2 pages will work out fine. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah definately, upon reflection RFCN would most probably be the best place for discussion, I've seen a number of cases pass through that would normally ended up at RFCN from AIV. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. GDonato (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Working well, good work! Doesn't make coffee though, but as I drink tea that is probably best... make it make tea. SGGH ^speak! 21:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Working great so far, especially using Twinkle Wildthing61476 21:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah ditto, working very well as a place for Twinkle to dump off to. Anything that stays on here for a few hours or so we can move off to Requests for comment for usernames, provided that the user was spoken to before hand, or just carry on a conversation on here. (using **'s) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There were some problems with Twinkle but Azatoth fixed it now it works like a charm..I have seen more username reported here than on AIV..----Cometstyles 22:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-UAA}} (moved to {{uw-uaa}})

I've created the above template to post to users who keep on making wrong reports here, could everyone take a look and format it where required? It possibly needs more wikilinking, bolding e.t.c. and the wording could maybe be tweaked. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added it into the main header of the page [2]. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks perfect, not bitey, and tells them what to do if they disagree. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as we don't start templating the regulars :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Regulars that don't read the instructions need to be templated. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

{{UAA4}}!? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a harsh warning! Leebo ^T/C 19:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

you've got to be strong to get the msg across! Ryan Postlethwaite 19:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

plagiarism in wikilinking. :-( GDonato (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No they don't, its decent for new users, and even semi-new users, but if say... User:ST47 screwed up, I'd hope you would give him a personal message. Sorry but templates are nice but they are also sorta demeaning, especially since at least 90% of the reports here are made vie twinkle, and therefor users don't always see the page instructuctions. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 12:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I never understood why templates are "demeaning", nobody has ever explained that to me. Using twinkle is no excuse not to read the instructions. I could give a personal message, but it would be saying the same thing as the template. That whole WP:DTTR is just an essay that does not have my support. I would support something along the lines of Wikipedia:Don't template people who don't need it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 12:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I support WP:DTTR, generally templates inform people of the policy. An experienced user probably just needs reminding, not informing them like it's the first time- this may seem like you are ignoring their previous good work. GDonato (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Being an experienced user does not mean they know the instructions for this page, there is nothing wrong with using the template. Also, there are ranges of templates, so they are not just for first notifications. Why would you think of a template as ignoring previous work? It does not follow, it just seems like a huge assumption. Experienced users don't always know better. I fail to see how a custom message that says the same thing is any more or less offensive. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 12:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying offensive, just annoying. Taking Template:Uw-vandalism1 as an example, it directs users to the sandbox and the introduction, if an experienced long-time contributor was directed towards the introduction if they included something which appeared to be a first instance of vandalism then I doubt that they would be very happy. Perhaps templates for regulars are suitable for more obscure policies then? GDonato (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Most people who post usernames here don't need reminding of policy, they need to be told what policy is, they don't even see the page, twinkle does it for them, templating the regulars is required in certain situations, and this is one of those. It's not warning per se, it's more of a friendly reminder. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it, I did some formatting stuff. Cheers, – Riana_ऋ 13:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers R, you've done a great job - I'm certainly no template wizard! Ryan Postlethwaite 13:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I should probably clarify - I copied the formatting off {{uw-aiv}} ;) I'm not particularly handy when it comes to techy stuff. – Riana_ऋ 13:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

bot reporting

Is there no set up for bot reporting names with "fuck" or such in them? Or would that be too unreliable/is there not enough username vio's to worry about it? SGGH ^speak! 17:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My concern would be the reliability in terms of false alarms (legitimate names with f, u, c, and k - in an English or non-English context), and also how far it would extend (fuck isn't the only "block on sight" word). A side concern relates to the fact that I dislike the bitey-ness of bots reporting users to administrators for their names, and how long after they register would they be reported? Leebo ^T/C 17:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could oppose this. The bot isn't blocking the user, or even warning the user. It's reporting it to UAA, and it's up to the discretion of the administrator to block or not. This is a great idea. The Evil Spartan 17:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's acceptable to express concerns before wholesale support or opposition. If you think it's feasible to scan names for the broad range of violations that exist without getting many false positives, then I'd be interested in seeing the proposed bot in action. Leebo ^T/C 17:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd support this, if it went the new user logs and looked for unblocked usernames that contain a selected few words, this would have to be limited however. It may even stop those users who trawl through the new user log looking for usernames to report - they could maybe do something useful! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 17:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, bots can look for the letter combinations, as long as the admins aren't trigger-happy and promptly block anything in the bot area, I don't think that's likely to happen though. Bots could also look for long usernames with contribs or something too. GDonato (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I could write this. It could have two user editable pages, the blacklist(naughty words), and the whitelist(for words like wristwatch). It would report saying "This name is suspected of being in violation for having the string foo". If a consensus is formed I could start the bot right away. Strings can be marked as "report right away" or "do not report until there is an edit". ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's way more than I thought was posible. It seems like this can "stop those users who trawl through the new user log looking for usernames to report - they could maybe do something useful" and would certainly make the inappropriate usernames procedure much more effective. GDonato (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the important part is that the white list and the blacklist be available for edit on wiki, and that reports are always reviewed by a human. The bot will only report new names, so it should never report the same name twice, if a report is dismissed then it will not be resubmitted. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly have no objections to such a bot. If its submissions here are segregated from user submissions (like occurs at AIV), admins could easily take its reports with a pinch of salt. Certainly worth trying out I'd think. Will (aka Wimt) 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well get on with writing it then High, can I suggest we make it report usernames without any edits? The names it is likely to report are going to be blatant so there's no need for any edits. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out User:HBC NameWatcherBot/Blacklist and User:HBC NameWatcherBot/Whitelist to get an idea of what I am doing. Please add/remove/edit the word list, and make any feature suggestions. I am making a flag system to each string can be marked in an arbitrary number of ways so feature additions should not be to hard. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think adding strings of known sockpuppeteers would be a good idea (eg. oompapa, on wheels)? Also I added skill to the whitelist, but even so I fear that kill may throw up a lot of false positives. Will (aka Wimt) 21:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "kill" can most likely be removed. As for names of common sock puppets, I can make a flag for sockpuppet strings in particular. Check out the blacklist page in 2 minutes and you will see what I mean. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah good work - I've added another sockpuppet (see this list). Will (aka Wimt) 22:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This should only take a day or two to code. Feel free to add suggestions for features on the talk page of the either blacklist, or my talk page. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick question, are we going to get approval for this? Also, have you thought of any names? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I will get approval of course, once the code is written and ready to test. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Supplementary question: How about a length limit too (eg 25/30char)? GDonato (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can make a length option, it will be set at a control panel page. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

45 I'd suggest. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Thisisa_very_longnameandishouldbeblockedforit. is 45 and I hope we would be disallowing less than that, don't particularly mind the length, though. GDonato (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:I am Ryan Postlethwaite from the United Kingdom is over 45 but we wouldn't block for that, usernames that have random letters are a different matter, but we can't write a bot for that. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also what do people think about adding some religious names into the blacklist? What about "jesus" or would it throw up too many non violations? Will (aka Wimt) 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support that, they can easily be removed. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a look through the log and 'god' would certainly be a no. Non-generic religious names should be added. GDonato (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK I've added a religious names section to the blacklist. Yeah I agree that "god" is definitely too vague. Will (aka Wimt) 22:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing this for example, what do people think about adding a section for existing usernames that are pretty unique and subject to a fair amount of abuse? I think "ryulong" is a good case in point because I can't imagine it throwing up many false positives. Will (aka Wimt) 22:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I was gonna propose this too- but #falsepositives vs. benefits (would also flag test accnts) makes me unsure. GDonato (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also the list will need protected if/when the thing goes active. GDonato (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You could always make it ";ryulong:ALTERNATE_TARGET(User talk:Ryulong),USE_HEADER". Then it would report it to you, assuming you had "<!-- HBC NameWatcherBot allowed -->" somewhere on your user talk page. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No thanks

Having a bot reporting potentially disallowed username is about as useful as having half a dozen editors trawling the new user creation log. As you well know, typically such accounts are not used and if they are used they can then be reported. It is a waste of time however, blocking every potentially offensive account if even 50% of them are not ever going to be used. Let people report as they see contributions or vandalisation from people. Viridae^Talk 23:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It might stop those half a dozen though.... Ryan Postlethwaite 23:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It does have a WAIT_TILL_EDIT flag for patterns that should wait until there is an edit. Names with "fuck" or "cunt" can be blocked on sight, while less blatant ones will be ignored till there is an edit. People are going through the creation logs, now they can go back to editing the encyclopedia. The bot will report to a separate page, so you can just ignore it if you don't want your time wasted. I think your objections have been addressed. If there are further issues functionality can be added to the bot, the ability to report a specific pattern to an alternate location already exists in the design. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No they haven't. There is simply no point in doing this. We were trying to stop users trawling the contribution logs doing the exact same thing (see the first mfd on WP:RFCN) and now a bot is proposed to do it. It is unecessary. Viridae^Talk 23:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah Viridae this is only intended to be for absolutely blatant names though - not the kind of borderline ones that people were complaining about at that particular MfD. Personally I think it's worth a try just to see how it works. If it throws up ridiculous numbers of reports of users that are never used then so be it and we can ditch the idea. However, if this bot can make the same reports as those people who are currently trawling the new user creation log, it could free them up for other things. That's a good thing in my mind. And I don't think that any harm can come from it because admins can always take bot suggestions with a pinch of salt. Will (aka Wimt) 23:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is not a huge amount of sense blocking an account that will never edit however, which was half the issue at the mfd. Viridae^Talk 01:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy says that blatantly offensive names can be blocked on sight. A few grumblings in an MfD does not amount to a consensus against the monitoring of the username creation logs for blatant violations. The bot will be controlled from a control panel page, a blacklist page and a whitelist page. Consensus on wiki can determine every function the bot performs on wiki. I see only harm to Wikipedia from allowing blatantly offensive usernames to put themselves into the edit history before we block them. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You see harm in them making an edit and having their username in the edit history, yet you still go onto propose that they be blocked only after making an edit. Blocked on sight does not say that we have to go out and find them to block. Viridae^Talk 01:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot can report after an edit or right away, it depends on if you put the WAIT_TILL_EDIT flag on the pattern or not. Blocked on sight does not mean we have to go looking for them, but we don't, the bot will. People still decide when and if a block is placed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If it is a problem I can make it wait for the user to edit by default unless the DONT_WAIT_TILL_EDIT flag is there, that is if there is a consensus to do it this way. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested that there is currently talk on WP:AN and WP:ANI about the use of bots with admin privelages to block usernames soon after creation. Please see [3] and [4]. If it came to that, I would support a bot as described above to take over from these admin bots, which remove the human intervention part of it. However I personally think this is all a waste of time and perpetuates username witch hunts like what we have seen in RFCN in the past. Furthermore, just as we don't do preventative protection, there is no reason to do preventative blocks on the off chance that the user may appear in an edit history somewhere - its not as if we don't have far worse things being added every day by a million and one vandals. Viridae^Talk 01:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not preventative in that the user has already violated policy by making the username, it is preventative in that it avoids this violation of policy from spreading. If you want a rule that says not to block usernames till they edit, try a proposal at WT:U, that is where the current policy of blocking blatantly inappropriate usernames on sight. The bot will not be doing any admin actions, nor would I want it to. Blocking a name like "Fuck tard5002" before the edit is not biting, it is common sense. People are still deciding on which blocks are placed, and if you have issue with any of the names the bot reports then you can bring that up.

You can just keep repeating it is a waste of time, but the fact is that humans are doing this job right now because they don't think it is a waste of time. Anyone who wants to avoid this "time being wasted" is not obligated in any way to pay any attention at all to its output. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I also see nothing on those ANI threads that relate to this bot. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Didnt say they did - they relate to the subject though. Viridae^Talk 02:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. If you are interested in what type of output the bot actually produces, I ran all the usernames that have been indefinitely blocked the last 5000 usernames created(about 12 hour worth) into it and produced this: User:HighInBC/bot testing. The bot will of course not produce that many, I found that running it live gives a name ever 20-40 minutes. I would like your input on how well the bot matches and explains itself, and if you can make any suggestions to improve it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That is 30 names in the last 12 hours. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I will have comments when I get home. I am at uni atm. Viridae^Talk 04:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note- testing for 'bot' (based on 20 000 names - 14 matches) produces a violation rate of exactly 50%- probably too low. GDonato (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Would testing for the string "bot" only at the end of user names increase the violation rate? Is it picking up things like "both"? Leebo ^T/C 11:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• That would reduce to 6 matches, 5 vios (83%) - failing to pick up one that is a vio. GDonato (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The violation rate is low because of words on the blacklist like "killer" and "stalk" and "murder". "bot" is no good as a word, as even legitimate bots need that name, there is no way to tell the difference. Keywords that have a high rate of false positives and be removed or can be redirected to another location for closer examination, for example 'bot' can go to another page(like User:HighInBC/Potential bot accounts) dedicated to looking at new bot accounts(if anyone wants to bother). ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the test was based on 'bot' only and the way to tell the difference is by discussing it with the bot operator —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GDonato (talk • contribs) 13:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

I removed "murder", "killer", "pimp", and "stalk" from the blacklist and added "watch" to the whitelist. I also marked "piss" as LOW_CONFIDENCE. This removes 9 of the false positives. Of the remaining false positives[5], all but "Kshitj.narang" warn of the danger of false positives. They are mostly names that contain "isgay" or "jesus" or "cock" or "Jimbo", names that while okay we would still want to give a quick look over.

The bot will only run as well as the backlist and whitelist are organized. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Account creation blocked

Can all admins remember that when performing a username block, they should disable the auto blocker and make sure account creation block is disabled, these should only be used for extremely offensive usernames or usernames of users which are obviously here to cause trouble. There's been a few problems lately with account creation being blocked. Cheers :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 11:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inappropriate username reporting team

Just thought everyone might find this funny, a vandal just moved the page to the above link! Ryan Postlethwaite 12:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You should increase the block length methinks. 21 bad page moves in 10 minutes. GDonato (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I blocked on sight, hardly looked at the contribs when I blocked - it was just as a protective measure. Now blocked indef. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot request for approval made

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HBC NameWatcherBot. If you support or oppose the idea of this bot(or just have suggestions or constructive criticism), please make your opinion known here. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is looking good, out of the last 18 names reported the only false positive was "Gail Trollope". I should be ready to roll this out sometime tomorrow. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot is read to roll out, I am just waiting on my final approval. Once approved my plan is to set up a sup page in the same manner as WP:AIV uses WP:AIV/TB2. Comment/suggestions welcome. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Subpage sounds OK, how about increasing the repeat rate for names, usually five letters have been OK'd on RFCN, feel free to disagree. GDonato (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That value is controllable on the User:HBC NameWatcherBot/Control panel, what value would you recommend? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, 6 or 7 - User:RossSsSnake (as unlikely as it is) would trigger 5 despite it actually meaning something (albeit without punctuation) GDonato (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work on the bot, btw- finally the new user patrollers can do something different! :-) GDonato (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

{{UAA}}

Username blocks should permit account creation so there is no need for them to request unblocking. Also username block unblock requests should use {{unblock-un}}. Having indefinetly block in bold is also a bit bitey. I didn't want to change anything myself as there may be a reason for these things. GDonato (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't like {{UAA}} for the same reason I didn't like {{Fwarn}} (which ended up deleted). If a user has been reported here then there is nothing they can do upon receiving this message to avoid being blocked. If an admin decides to block them, then they will receive {{unb}} anyway, so this template is superfluous. And if an admin decides not to block them, then we might assume that their name is not in violation of the username policy (at least not blatantly) so this template could be seen as biting. I think it is better to to await decision here before adding anything to their userpage. If the decision is that the violation is blatant, then {{unb}} does all that is necessary; if the decision is not to block straight away then leaving {{usernameconcern}} is a better course of action in my opinion. Will (aka Wimt) 11:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Will has some valid points. If the name is found not the be in blatant violation then the user need never know it was even questioned. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Reading again, I don't understand the scope of this template- there are no transclusions of it. {{usernameDiscussion}} tells a user when their name is discussed, {{Usernameconcern}} expresses concern. Apart from that there is nothing else to say to the user. What is the purpose of this? GDonato (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say the template is redundant. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Redundant template, per Will's points above. Account name is reported, account name is blocked if in violation, not blocked if not in violation, discussed if iffy. We shouldn't have to make it more complex than that. – Riana_ऋ 17:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed from the header. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I think you are all right, it was a bit bitey and I apologise for this as I created the template. Happy editing! The Sunshine Man 17:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

UsernameConcern template

I have added Category:Usernames editors have expressed concern over to {{UsernameConcern}} so that HBC AIV helperbot can detect when users have been given the template. If a report is made here on a user that has the UsernameConcern template on their page, the bot will make a note of it below the report. This should avoid people being blocked on sight after the route of discussion has already begun. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It will probably allow better follow up as well for users that have been given the concern template. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot Live

The new bot is now live, it will report usernames to a sub-page which is transcluded on to WP:UAA. The bots functionality can be adjusted by editing:

1. The control panel - General settings including an on/off switch
2. The blacklist - A list of strings that set off the bot if they are in a username
3. The whitelist - A list of exceptions to strings on the blacklist

These pages are protected to avoid abuse, but you can suggest changes on their talk pages. These settings should be determined by consensus. If you need to stop the bot on a specific page, remove the "<!-- HBC NameWatcherBot allowed -->" from the page. If you want to stop the bot all together then you can turn it off in the control panel. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Poop

Is it just me, or are there an AWFUL lot of poop/poopy usernames lately? In the last weekish, we've blocked: User:Poopy_face101, User:Poopypoopypiepie, User:NIGGA POOP, User:Brandonpoopy, User:Poopy12332, User:Poopy356t, User:Poopdoodoo, User:Poopfrenzy, User:Pooperstar, User:Poopoopeni1, User:Poopy 2007, and User:Poopydiapersinmymouth. Not to mention a few personal attack usernames against TeckWiz and HighinBC. What should we do about this? My first suggestion is that any more "poop" usernames we get should be blocked from account creation: I'd like to see if that decreases the frequency. Mangojuice^talk 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I do get the feeling that most of these are the same 5 kids. The personal attack usernames were coming from multiple IPs though. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do. – Riana_ऋ 18:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh man - I guess that would rule out my hopes and dreams of someday using User:Nincompoop --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

T-dot, if a legitimate name does contain "poop", it will not be blocked at all(except perhaps by mistake). By "blocked from account creation" he does not mean stopping such accounts from being made, but blocking the user so that he cannot make more accounts with the same IP. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sections

Is it possible that we could switch the section headers around? HBC NameWatcher Bot keeps putting the usernames under the "Bot Reported" category. Plus, it's unlikely that we're ever going to report a bot with an inappropriate username. It would make more sense if we switched the section headers around. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The Bot Reported section is for reports made by bots, not reports about bots. —Kyриx 00:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, usernames are reported by watcher-bots (under the bot section) or users (under the user section), an inappropriately named bot wouldn't get through bot-proposals anyway. SGGH ^speak! 00:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Thanks for clearing that up. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

arse

I have added arse and names of similar ilk to the blacklist, with 'arse' having a low confidence tag so the bot accompanies the reports with the "beware prone to false posivities" thing. I have whitelisted "arsenal" but that was the only one I could think of. If there are other legit words that need to be whitelisted please let me know here. SGGH ^speak! 15:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Cometstyles has given me this list which you can all look at, extensive list of potentially "bad" names, many of which we haven't thought of. SGGH ^speak! 15:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sparse, parse, hearse... that's all I've got. – Riana ⁂ 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Have whitelised the above. SGGH ^speak! 15:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Arsenic? (OK, that's pushing it!) GDonato (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Arsenic whitelisted. ^(H) 15:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Rehearsal - would not be covered by hearse. GDonato (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooops... off to take a brain-break. GDonato (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Rehearsal does not contain "arse", so no worries there. ^(H) 16:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Rehearse does, but the whitelisted hearse will cover it. ^(H) 16:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Whitelist Arsenal F.C or maybe someone who is a fan of the soccer club ..----Cometstyles 12:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already whitelisted arsenal so that should cover arsenal fc :) SGGH ^speak! 14:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Dict gives:

Long list

$grep -h arse /usr/share/dict/{american-english,british-english} | sort | uniq
arse
arsehole
arseholes
arsenal
arsenals
arsenal's
arsenic
arsenic's
arses
arse's
catharses
coarse
coarsely
coarsen
coarsened
coarseness
coarseness's
coarsening
coarsens
coarser
coarsest
hearse
hearsed
hearses
hearse's
hoarse
hoarsely
hoarseness
hoarseness's
hoarser
hoarsest
Larsen
Larsen's
Marseillaise
Marseillaise's
Marseilles
parse
parsec
parsecs
parsec's
parsed
parser
parser's
parses
rehearse
rehearsed
rehearses
sparse
sparsely
sparseness
sparser
sparsest
unrehearsed

_→AzaToth 15:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have whitelisted

• catharses
• coarse
• hoarse
• larsen
• marseill

That could cover it. ^(H) 21:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget 'arse' alone as a comment attached to it just to be safe. SGGH ^speak! 00:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Consecutive numbers

User:The Evil Spartan requested that I add the ability to detect extended consecutive numbers to the name watcher bot. I have added this feature and set it to disabled pending consensus here.

How many consecutive numbers should be needed before the bot reports it as potentially confusing? eg "Hello world95" good, "Hello world13246135768184351468134189618" bad, but should the line be for automated reporting? I suggest 7. ^(H) 21:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Seven numbers seems excessive ("Hello world1324613"), but that's an arbitrary figure. What about above seven being reported as blatant, but between three and six is reported, but noted as a potential false positive? EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think 3 is too low, maybe 5 and 6 as false positives and 7 or above blatant. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

6 or 7 per repeating character rule, I would say. GDonato (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Make 5 low confidence. Make 6 and over regular. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Red Sux!) 22:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not done by the blacklist but is hard coded, so this will not be a LOW_CONFIDENCE/blatant thing. It will just report blatant violations as a bot or a human should be doing to UAA. I am taking from this discussion that 6 is a good number, I will set it. Feel free to suggest changes for any of the control panel settings on its talk page. ^(H) 06:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplication

Had both a bot and user report of User:Skater ddddddddddude 18 just now, bot didn't seem to be merging it. A problem or am I just expecting it to work too fast? SGGH ^speak! 00:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Does the bot try to merge them now? It didn't used to. Mangojuice^talk 00:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It should merge reports on the same page. The bot reported section is actually a separate page transcluded on the main one. The same thing applies at AIV, where AVB, uses a subpage transcluded on the main one. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Red Sux!) 01:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh right. Fair enough then! SGGH ^speak! 20:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't know how to report names

I found this user User:Firesbh and I warned them (other people warned them too) but I don;t get how you are supose to report them on the page there it doesn't tell you how to report them so how do you report them? Scti 02:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This way * {{userlinks|username}}--Dakota 02:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Or if you have previously reported at WP:AIV, you may find * {{vandal|username here}} easier and quicker to use. Regards — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Being blocked

You know, I don't actually know what happens when someone is blocked, from the point of view of the person who is blocked. Does a marker just pop up when you try to edit saying you are blocked or....? SGGH ^speak! 17:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to find out?! Try blocking youself as a test. Basically, when you try and edit, it takes you to a new screen explaining that you've been blocked, gives you information on how to appeal the block and the blocking admins reasons. So if you put {{UsernameBlocked}} as the block reason, that template is transcluded as the reason. I block my Doppel account User:Ryanpostlethwaiteontheroad to do tests on (make sure you don't autoblock yourself though!) Ryan Postlethwaite 17:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

When you're blocked, you see this. Sean William 17:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

SGGH: if you really want to block yourself as a test, make sure to disable autoblocking, just in case. Mangojuice^talk 21:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The blocking buttons are not toys, you should not block yourself. Just connect through Tor and you will see what it is like to be blocked. Basically you cannot edit and you see the block message. ^(H) 22:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I always time out when I try connecting through a rock... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

LOl, and meh @ not bloking yourself. I have done it a couple of times. Viridae^Talk 23:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on blocking myself, because whoever comes along to answer my unbloc request will just laugh at me :P SGGH ^speak! 17:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Top level domains

The bot is reporting names that have top level domains at the end in an attempt to find urls. I am currently using every TLD, but it seems that there are so many country codes that there is a lot of false positives.

My question to you is, should I keep all TLDs or should I remove the less common ones? Of course we keep .com .net .org, what about .gov or .ca or .jp? Which should we keep, and which should we not keep? I am using this list: [6]. ^(H) 20:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep all mentioned plus .uk, .au, .ie and other English-official-language countries and that should be enough for the English Wikipedia. GDonato (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Also .in, have been seeing quite a few from India, which seems to be up-and-coming as a major spam source. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep them all. False positives aren't a problem, and there seem to be enough admins watching UAA. Worst case is a false positive sits there for a few hours until someone calls it. It's seems pretty much against the norm to have a .xxx or .xx at the end of a name so they should throw a warning. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to leave things as they are for now, feel free to continue developing consensus on this matter. ^(H) 17:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to add a feature where the bot attempts to look up the domain name in question, and then reports the result of the attempt to contact an http server on port 80. That should save time in identifying domain names. ^(H) 23:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The feature is implemented, it will now attempt to contact what it sees as domain names and will report the response code it got.

Currently it reports failed connections because a name like "Visit booya.net" would fail as it would lookup "visit%20booya.net", whereas the domain being advertised is "booya.net". If it turns out that this is not common enough to justify reporting domains it failed to connect to then it can be told to ignore them. If the 'ignore_fail' parameter is set in the HTTP_CHECK flag on the blacklist, then it will not display reports that got a 5** response at all. ^(H) 00:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a good example. ^(H) 00:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)