Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

UAA navigation: UAA instructions • The holding pen •

Usernames for administrator attention

Guidelines for filing editors – please read: Do not report a username unless it: is clearly inappropriate and a blatant violation of the username policy, and has made recent edits (within the last 2–3 weeks at the outside). Accounts that haven't edited in 3 weeks or more should not be reported. Remember to assume good faith, and to not bite the newcomers. You should be familiar with the UAA instructions before creating or acting upon a report. For blatantly obvious violations of username policy: Report the name here with an explanation of what is problematic with the username in relation to policy. Note that not all violations require blocks, and some names will be monitored instead. These names will go to the holding pen. For ordinary violations of the username policy: Do not use this page. Instead, warn the user and ask them to change their name, possibly using the {{subst:uw-username}} template. If the user has already been warned of their violation: Consider taking your request to RFCN, which is a forum for discussing possible violations after the user has already been notified and has refused or continues to edit without addressing the issue. The name is a possible violation, but there's another policy concern: It is usually better to block for the bigger problem. A vandal, spammer, or editor with a possible conflict of interest who also has a username issue should be reported to the most appropriate noticeboard. See the UAA instructions for more help with these situations. Please note that anyone may edit under their real name; do not report these usernames here unless you have very good reason to believe that the user is an impersonator. Keep in mind that non-admins are encouraged to comment on reports at this noticeboard and to participate in talk page discussions. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Note: Administrators should also kindly consider usernames listed at Filter 149, Filter 188, Filter 354, WP:UAA/HP and CAT:UAA.

Bot-reported

• Bonemarketing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · global · edit filter log • block · soft · bot · softer · cause • hard · spam · vandal · google)

  Matched: Promotional? 1 -- DQB (t) (e) 22:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  Clerk note: Usernames containing this string are often promotional in nature - check if this is the case -- DQB (t) (e) 22:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  Comment: one link spam Secretlondon (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Libertard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · global · edit filter log • block · soft · bot · softer · cause • hard · spam · vandal · google)

  Matched: tards?$ -- DQB (t) (e) 02:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Minecrapped69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · global · edit filter log • block · soft · bot · softer · cause • hard · spam · vandal · google)

  Matched: CrapFoo -- DQB (t) (e) 04:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• LibertyOrDeathToday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · global · edit filter log • block · soft · bot · softer · cause • hard · spam · vandal · google)

  Matched: death(\s|-)*to -- DQB (t) (e) 05:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Andreamarta.gs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · global · edit filter log • block · soft · bot · softer · cause • hard · spam · vandal · google)

  Matched: Top level domain -- DQB (t) (e) 11:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

  Clerk note: Please check whether this name is promoting a Web site. Names may coincidentally resemble URLs or point to parked domains so take care. -- DQB (t) (e) 11:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

User-reported

• Whatever you feel like, apparently (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · global · edit filter log • block · soft · bot · softer · cause • hard · spam · vandal · google) – Violation of username policy as a misleading username. Not sure if this is really a problem, but the rationale for a doppelgänger account appears to defy logic since the two names are too different. If this is the wrong venue, or I'm mistaken in my understanding, please educated me or simply point me to the policy I have failed to understand.. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not informed the user at this time, as I could simply be wrong and no misconduct is actually being claimed. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Well it's not a doppelganger account. Is it humour? It's a declared sock anyway. Is this a problem? Secretlondon (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem that I have seen, I just didn't see the rationale under Wikipedia:SOCK#LEGIT, and thought that might be a problem. If you say there is no problem with it, I will leave well enough alone. I had just never run across this before, and felt another set of eyes was a good idea. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know if it's a problem or not. It's certainly not a doppelganger. I think it's an attempt at humour. Secretlondon (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It might be a problem, or simply a bad idea. Arbcom cleared them of being a sock o ChildOfMidnight[1], but they had a sock User:RelevantUsername blocked, (was a claim of WP:CLEANSTART that someone appears to not have believed.) There are others who have been concerned [2]. This doesn't mean that there is anything wrong here, but it wasn't a smart idea considering they have been accused of socking at least twice before. I'm not saying action is required, but maybe an admin could ask them what the deal is, for clarity. If it is humor, the punchline is not obvious. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: I left a note: here. TNXMan 15:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)