Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m 12 users left. rm OccupyToronto (blocked indef by Daniel_Case (ABD)).
Line 36: Line 36:
*{{user-uaa|1=Trollolololololololololol}} – Violation of username policy as a disruptive username. See [[Troll (internet)]]. [[User:Tckma|Tckma]] ([[User talk:Tckma|talk]]) 20:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
*{{user-uaa|1=Trollolololololololololol}} – Violation of username policy as a disruptive username. See [[Troll (internet)]]. [[User:Tckma|Tckma]] ([[User talk:Tckma|talk]]) 20:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
:*'''Note''': User is in the category: [[:Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over|Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over]]. [[User:HBC AIV helperbot7|HBC AIV helperbot7]] ([[User talk:HBC AIV helperbot7|talk]]) 19:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
:*'''Note''': User is in the category: [[:Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over|Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over]]. [[User:HBC AIV helperbot7|HBC AIV helperbot7]] ([[User talk:HBC AIV helperbot7|talk]]) 19:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
::*Nothing has changed since I declined this one earlier: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=prev&oldid=453044553]. Not sure why it is here again. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 04:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
*{{user-uaa|1=Deanseay-T}} &ndash; Violation of username policy as a promotional username. [[WP:YAMB]]? See userpage. [[User:Tckma|Tckma]] ([[User talk:Tckma|talk]]) 17:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
*{{user-uaa|1=Deanseay-T}} &ndash; Violation of username policy as a promotional username. [[WP:YAMB]]? See userpage. [[User:Tckma|Tckma]] ([[User talk:Tckma|talk]]) 17:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
:{{UAA|b}} This is a stage name, clearly representing an individual, not an organization or group. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 23:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
:{{UAA|b}} This is a stage name, clearly representing an individual, not an organization or group. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 23:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:15, 30 September 2011

    Usernames for administrator attention
    Shortcuts

    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.

    1. Except in the instance of an egregious name violation, please do not report accounts with no edits or those who have not edited in the preceding 2 weeks.
    2. Real names are permitted, except when the editor implies they are someone other than themselves, such as impersonating a notable living person.
    3. Promotional names require evidence to be blocked. Do not report a username merely because it "appears" promotional.
    4. For libellous usernames or usernames that contain another editor's nonpublic personal information, please contact an oversighter and do not report it here.
    5. Discuss less-serious violations with the user on their talk page so that they can rename or abandon their account in good faith. Templates such as {{Uw-username}} or {{Uw-coi-username}} may be used. If, after discussion with a user, the problem still seems unresolved, a username request for comment may be in order.
    6. Do not leave a username warning on a user's talk page and also immediately report them here. Do one or the other, and not both simultaneously.
    7. Patrollers are asked to remove reports that have been declined, are bot-reported false positives or are otherwise non-blatant or stale reports.
    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
    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 01:43 on 17 May 2024 (UTC). Purge the cache of this page 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.

    Bot-reported


    User-reported

    Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Single edit didn't show a name connection. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait until the user edits. But I agree it does not look promising. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: What is the connection between the article edited and the organization on the Facebook page? Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Webmaster senate (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – Violation of username policy as a misleading username. Re-adding report that was removed in error. This account was created yesterday. The user made two edits to Maine Senate that appear to have been in good faith and has not edited since. The username, not the behavior, appears to be against policy. Tckma (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The username itself is Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't certain on this one. Isn't "webmaster" making a misleading claim? I realize it means webmaster of (probably) the Maine Senate, in which case it's not an intentional violation. Tckma (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • – Violation of username policy as a misleading username. Editing Maine Senate, but edits appear to be in good faith. Tckma (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC) (Moved by bot)[reply]
    Comment: Yeah, but it was still an AfC submission (What happened to my previous iteration of this comment?) Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a blatant violation of the username policy. This is a stage name, clearly representing an individual.
    We seem to have a rash of these accounts being created. See User:Deanseay-T and User:Blackliquid below. All share the disturbing similarity of having a userpage with a brief description of the performer. This makes me wonder if these accounts have been created by the same person, possibly a PR firm? I remember once seeing a tool to determine who created which accounts but I can't remember where it is. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing has changed since I declined this one earlier: [1]. Not sure why it is here again. --Jayron32 04:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a blatant violation of the username policy. This is a stage name, clearly representing an individual, not an organization or group. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a blatant violation of the username policy. This is a stage name, clearly representing one individual rather than an organization. Maybe impersonating? Possibly, but it looks to me more like a case of self-promotion. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Perhaps we should clarify this point at the Village Pump. There's some disagreement among admins whether to block COI names that clearly belong to one person rather than a role. This isn't any different from someone calling himself "Led Zeppelin fan" and editing articles about Led Zeppelin. In the end, in these cases, blocking should be based on the bigger problem, in this case possibly using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That does seem like it's up for interpretation, right? It seems obvious that someone who's a fan is more prone to POV pushing than actual COI editing. Sort of a grey area I guess. I'm not sure if you got a chance to check their history but they were creating an article that was deleted under G11. Their intent was to come to WP and create a promotional article for a client of RVS Entertainment. I probably should have clarified that in the notice. OlYellerTalktome 22:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My 2 cents: This person is an intern, presumably working for the company responsible for promoting said client (RVS). I worked for a company a few years ago that gave out an assignment to one of my co-workers to write/edit the Wikipedia article for the company (no, I'm not naming the company, as I don't care to associate any of my online personas with my specific employers) -- at the time I did not know this was against the rules and had I been given the assignment I might have done so. It could be that they are merely following orders without knowing better. For the above example to be valid, you'd have to change "fan" to "intern" or "employee" -- not that I think there are any Led Zeppelin interns, but I think it's different to have a fan of X editing articles about X rather than an employee of Company Y editing articles about Customer of Company Y. Tckma (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is a grey/gray area at all - to my mind it's a clear violation, and the user is clearly spamming for the company's clients. It is very different from the "Led Zeppelin fan" example. – ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The behavior is certainly blockable. The username is the gray area, as I explained in my rationale. Don't confuse blockable behavior with the username policy. There may be a relationship between a username and the editor's behavior, but the username alone isn't the bigger problem. As I also said, this is the sort of thing that should really be clarified at the village pump. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I made it perfectly obvious that I am not confusing the name with the behaviour. To repeat, the name is a clear violation, as "RVS Employee" would be - WP:CORPNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly seems like a clear violation to me. An intern is a paid employee of a company. I agree with Ukexpat that it might as well be "RVSEmployee". In the end, I don't care a whole lot but a block seems warranted. They haven't edited since the article's deletion and issued warning so perhaps they've moved on. OlYellerTalktome 02:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&oldid=453159121"