Contents
- 1 Bot not editing since Sept 17
- 2 Case sensitivity in usernames
- 3 "Nazi" in usernames
- 4 UAA Bot Work
- 5 Weird Usernames
- 6 Names matching a page up for deletion
- 7 Noose
- 8 accounts with really long names made up of sets of four random characters joined together by colons
- 9 Names and numbers
- 10 Utility of reports by DatBot
- 11 Confusing Usernames is a highly ambiguous rule with no clear definition
Bot not editing since Sept 17
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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Doh. I'm guessing we all assumed someone else told you... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Case sensitivity in usernames
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?
CapnZapp (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
PS. I found exactly one talk section in the archives on this topic, but it was nine years old. DS.
- @CapnZapp: There are technical and policy issues. Usernames are caps-sensitive because that is how the software works. Even if you could, you still should not register a case-variation of another username because of the policy against confusing usernames would get 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. TigraanClick 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. –xenotalk 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Let me rephrase since some editors state they don't understand what I identify as lacking in the current article.
How can I answer the following questions from the policy?
- ) "can I log in as capnzapp?"
- ) "can I register Capnzapp?"
Without making an attempt at actual login/registration, that is.
Please explain, step by step, how you envision a regular non-technical reader to achieve clarity here. Or to be honest I'd rather you don't, since my aim isn't to force anyone to go into defensive stance. My aim is to explain how this page fails to explain its basic tenets in a way that is comprehensible to the non-specialist reader. So I'd much rather you improve the article than reply to me :-) CapnZapp (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- To answer your questions:
- No, because
Wikipedia usernames are case sensitive, but the first letter is always automatically capitalized.
(source) - 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)
- No, because
- 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)
"Nazi" in usernames
- 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)
UAA Bot Work
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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
- Amorymeltzer, Could edit desc Not say something like
- 3 Users remaining. 3 Blocked (User:Example blocked User:Placeholder and User:Test / User:Test blocked User:Example2 RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 18:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Weird Usernames
Why are user names like:- Sohom ⁴⁵⁷⁸⁹ being allowed to even register. And, how to even type it? ∯WBGconverse 06:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see anything in UPOL except UNCONF which is a catch-all.......∯WBGconverse 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)
- These are actually using Unicode, which falls under WP:SCRIPTPLEASE. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Names matching a page up for deletion
So I've encountered a user that matched the username of (and has also edited) Ricardo Milos, but at the moment, the page is up for deletion. I have reverted one of their edits because the sources they used fell under WP:UGC, but the user reverted me back. I am unsure as to whether the user can be reported to this venue as a blatant violation anyway, despite the AfD. If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{u|JalenFolf}} to your message, and signing it. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- This is something of a grey area that is open to interpretation. If the page was kept, the name would be blocked until it was verified that it was actually the article subject and not an imposter. Since it was deleted, by Wikipedia's definition they are not notable and therefore WP:REALNAME applies. That being said, I have encountered the argument that creating an article about onseself is a claim of notability and therefore it is blockable, but I don't happen to agree that we should bend over backward looking for any reason to block someone. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Noose
Let this thread be an example of how to approach a situation of unexpectedly offensive imagery respectfully, and how to respond respectfully when someone points out that something you did was offensive even if that wasn't your intent. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I dont know if this username qualifies as posing "blatant and serious problems that they need to be immediately blocked." But the name and the associated images seems very offensive, even if it is not intended to be so. Check out User:A loose noose. Comments?--Smokefoot (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Smokefoot:I would say it is a violation, a least the userpage A 10 fireplane Imform me 18:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Have removed image, didn't realize it might be offensive.
Would be willing to change username as well, if requested. ( don't know exactly how to do this, though). A loose noose (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)- Username change request submitted. A loose noose (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- @A loose necktie:. One would think that you would make a more substantial name change to distance yourself from the awful imagery of a noose. But you will get away with "loose neck tie", I guess with a smirk. Are we to expect the image of a loose necktie on your user page?--Smokefoot (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Smokefoot: I can't seem to win here. I had my reasons at the time for picking that username and that image. I have now changed both, at your request, and you think I am smirking. I tried to change it to "A frayed knot" but that request was rejected because it resembled some other username already in use. I understand you found the previous association morbid. You are entitled to that association. Can I please now move forward here? Or is "necktie" too suggestive of "hanging ones self with a necktie" or "being led like a dog on a leash" or some other association that I have not anticipated yet but that you also dislike? Or is the horse not dead yet? A loose necktie (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am voicing my opinion that if you agree that your former imagery was objectionable, you could have done more to distance yourself from it.
- In the US at least, one would get fired from many responsible positions for showing or for invoking images of a noose. See Noose#Use in intimidation. Just sayin'--Smokefoot (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Smokefoot: I can't seem to win here. I had my reasons at the time for picking that username and that image. I have now changed both, at your request, and you think I am smirking. I tried to change it to "A frayed knot" but that request was rejected because it resembled some other username already in use. I understand you found the previous association morbid. You are entitled to that association. Can I please now move forward here? Or is "necktie" too suggestive of "hanging ones self with a necktie" or "being led like a dog on a leash" or some other association that I have not anticipated yet but that you also dislike? Or is the horse not dead yet? A loose necktie (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- @A loose necktie:. One would think that you would make a more substantial name change to distance yourself from the awful imagery of a noose. But you will get away with "loose neck tie", I guess with a smirk. Are we to expect the image of a loose necktie on your user page?--Smokefoot (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Username change request submitted. A loose noose (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Have removed image, didn't realize it might be offensive.
- The new username is in no way even a borderline violation of the username policy, so I don't see any point in this bickering. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- @A loose necktie: I will desist. I offer my sincere apology to A loose necktie and other readers of this site for my bickering interpretation.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Smokefoot: Wait, you thought I was making a reference of racial intimidation?? Holy snowballs! I was making a reference to grim resignation! NOW I understand your objection much more thoroughly! I had not thought of that context at all, and certainly had not meant to invoke it. My apologies for that, and I thank you for pointing it out to me. Let's hope the necktie thing adequately dissociates me from that connection. Truly, it had not remotely occurred to me until you now mentioned it. I live in a world of 15th century European references more than 20th century American ones. My apologies. A loose necktie (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- @A loose necktie: I will desist. I offer my sincere apology to A loose necktie and other readers of this site for my bickering interpretation.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
accounts with really long names made up of sets of four random characters joined together by colons
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 IPV6 IP addresses, not usernames. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Names and numbers
User:Stanglavine and I are currently at loggerheads (that's probably a tad strong a term; we disagree!) over whether or not the name of a company plus its year of establishment - such as WidgetsUSA2009, for example - constitutes a valid username under WP:CORPNAME (see User_talk:Stanglavine#Rename_concern for the specifics). I'm bringing the discussion over here to get a few more opinions: is this type of username suitable to identify a single individual (which would make it acceptable under the policy), or does it still represent a company (which would make it an unsuitable username)? Any thoughts? Yunshui 雲水 21:25, 26 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. Beeblebrox (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)
Utility of reports by DatBot
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 WP:SPI or some other more relvant location rather than to WP:UAA, for the simple reason that UAA basically doesn't deal with these reports as they aren't usually blatant violations of the username policy and that si the only purpose of UAA, so they just end up getting removed after a day or two. Seems counterproductive to me. Pinging @DatGuy: as bot maintainer. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Also dropped a notice at WT:EF pointing here. Beeblebrox (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 WP:EFN rather than WT:EF I believe. Dat GuyTalkContribs 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. Beeblebrox (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)
- 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 29 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)
Confusing Usernames is a highly ambiguous rule with no clear definition
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. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)