Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention
Appearance
UAA navigation: |
Usernames for administrator attention |
---|
This page is intended for reports of usernames that are blatant and serious violations of the username policy requiring an immediate block. Reports will be assessed in accordance with the username policy, the UAA instructions, and the following bullet points. Please ensure you are familiar with the assessment criteria before making a report.
|
Note: Patrollers may wish to monitor usernames flagged by filters 54, 148 and 149; private filters 102, 354, 499, 579; and this recent changes filter tag.
This page was last updated at 09:06 on 14 August 2024 (UTC).
if it is out of date.Note: Administrators should also kindly consider usernames listed at Filter 149, Filter 188, Filter 354, WP:UAA/HP and CAT:UAA.
- BESTJOBSERVICES (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- This username matched "Promotional? 1" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 01:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note on file Usernames containing this string are often promotional in nature - check if this is the case -- DQB (owner / report) 01:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Justanidiot420 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- This username matched "idiot" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 02:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Leftwinglozer (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- This username matched "Used z instead of s attempting to skip filter: loser. Violating string: leftwingloser" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 05:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Totemwealthmanagement (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- This username matched "Promotional? 1" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 07:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note on file Usernames containing this string are often promotional in nature - check if this is the case -- DQB (owner / report) 07:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- SPECIALIST6 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Low confidence There is low confidence in this filter test, please be careful in blocking. -- DQB (owner / report) 07:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- This username matched "specialist" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 07:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note on file Used by Indian love magic spammers -- DQB (owner / report) 07:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Aefec40c-469b-4ab5-8593-3cf1f30bb10f (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Low confidence There is low confidence in this filter test, please be careful in blocking. -- DQB (owner / report) 08:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- This username matched "long username without spaces" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 08:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
User-reported
- 123456JBSUCKS654321 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) — Violation of username policy because it's a disruptive username; -- Màñü飆¹5 talk 22:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Klinco1nc (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) — Violation of username policy because it's a promotional username; Slightly "leeted" name of company in userspace draft. The Interior (Talk) 22:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ubuntuinstitute (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) — Violation of username policy because it's a promotional username; Ubuntu Institute (see user page). The Interior (Talk) 22:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Truthaboutospino (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) — Violation of username policy because it's an offensive and disruptive username; Username indicates an agenda against Ospina Coffee Company, which the editor has attacked with their edits.. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- IPscape (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) — Violation of username policy because it's a promotional username; Alpha Quadrant talk 03:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Note: User is in the category: Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over. HBC AIV helperbot7 (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: As I often say, if they've submitted at AfC and been declined, let's let them go if they don't edit again. Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know how to keep track of whether they ever edit again; do you have a gadget that will notify us if they edit? - Dank (push to talk) 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not that that wouldn't be a bad idea. In the meantime ... First, I'm sure this will be removed to the holing pen soon, and remain there for a couple of weeks. You could go back and check there. Then it will still be in the category; you could check there, too. Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I could check it every week for as long as Wikipedia's around; doesn't seem like the best use of my time, though. If I check it once a month, then by the time I notice the edits, the damage may be done, including the usual arguments over whether they have become an "established" user and the confusion among the patrollers on the question of what's blockable. If someone has a way to ping me when an account (that we all agree has a username that violates our policy) starts editing, I'll be happy to take no action. Otherwise, the practical approach is to block it, and hope that they follow our advice to choose a new username. IMO there are few disadvantages and many advantages to this approach. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am kind of inclined to agree with this approach. The user is free to file an unblock request if they later wish to make legitimate edits. The biggest argument against a block would probably be the possibility of the autoblock component sideswiping an innocent IP. - Vianello (Talk) 19:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I could check it every week for as long as Wikipedia's around; doesn't seem like the best use of my time, though. If I check it once a month, then by the time I notice the edits, the damage may be done, including the usual arguments over whether they have become an "established" user and the confusion among the patrollers on the question of what's blockable. If someone has a way to ping me when an account (that we all agree has a username that violates our policy) starts editing, I'll be happy to take no action. Otherwise, the practical approach is to block it, and hope that they follow our advice to choose a new username. IMO there are few disadvantages and many advantages to this approach. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not that that wouldn't be a bad idea. In the meantime ... First, I'm sure this will be removed to the holing pen soon, and remain there for a couple of weeks. You could go back and check there. Then it will still be in the category; you could check there, too. Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know how to keep track of whether they ever edit again; do you have a gadget that will notify us if they edit? - Dank (push to talk) 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)