Category talk:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues

Doing the right thing

i don't know if this is the right way or not, i am new to this process and would love to do the right thing. my user name is part of my business name and if i have to change it i would use my first name with a number after it. I chose the name because it is easy for me to remember. for every web site one joins there is a user name to go with it and therefore one could end up with hundreds of user names. But yes if i have to change i will. if i haven't done this correctly please inform i am a first time user. thanks Nncadmin 13:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup bot

This list would be a lot more useful if the blocked users were removed from the list. Perhaps a bot could do that? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I am going to assume this is something useful and try to code it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DusterBot if you have an opinion. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As of now, there are not blocked users in this category. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

where do I need to go to change the user name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Arrow Interactive (talk • contribs) 19:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Intent

Is it the intent of this cat to keep track of all usernames that have ever been suspected of violating WP:USERNAME? Or is it simply to list those usernames that are currently under investigation. Seems like the latter would be true, since most blocked usernames get a different template added to the talk page and thus get removed from this cat. I was thinking about going through and changing the messages on all the talk pages of those usernames that have been blocked so that this cat can be used for active investigations only. Otherwise the true utility of this cat seems limited. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The category is mostly or exclusively populated by the template {{Uw-username}}. Whether that makes sense was recently subject of a discussion with little participation archived at Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator_attention/Archive_2#Lets_discuss_it.2C_then_block_later_only_if_needed. I then did some analysis at User:Tikiwont/Uw-username with the outcome that in most cases the users are simply discouraged from to editing with that user name. Some need to be blocked, some ask for a name change but most accounts are actually abandoned, which IMO is a good result. As suggested also there, we should have a bot that assures that the category is removed from accounts that already have been blocked, but also from those that actually have been renamed. All he others should be sorted into dated categories to allow for filtering of the recent ones and sifting through the oldest in case of extreme boredom. Now i notice above that there already was once a bot: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DusterBot. Maybe it can be reactivated and possibly also expanded accordingly.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I put in a query here to see if a bot (similar to DusterBot) could remove the indeffed usernames from the category. It would simplify the patrolling of the category by only leaving the active users in the cat. But the original question would remain: Do we want a cat that contains all problematic usernames, blocked or otherwise? I tend to lean towards "No", especially given that some indeffed users are put into the Temporary User Pages cat, so end up deleted, making any list incomplete anyway. Thoughts? Arakunem^Talk 19:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

See my comment on Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator_attention#Clean_up_of_Cat:Concern_Over_Usernames (before I found this thread). It would be great if this cat could be cleaned automatically, say anything older than 60 days with no action/response form the editor. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that DusterBot is currently operating, removing blocked users from this cat. What is not being done is to remove long abandoned users, or alternatively to sort them into dated cats as suggested above, or any variant of this. DES ^(talk) 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so how do I get my name off this category?

I was accused of doing bad things with my username, I'm not! See my user talk page and user page if you don't believe me. There are others on Wikipedia who use religious figures as their usernames, too. Please remove my username from this category. Joseph Smith, Jr. (b.1805) (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am quoting the username policy here:

1. Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. Misleading names include those that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, or those that impersonate other people.
2. Promotional usernames are used to promote a group, company, product or website on Wikipedia.
3. Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible.
4. Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks, include profanities or otherwise show a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia.

I just do not see my username in any of those categories. Please take me off the list.Joseph Smith, Jr. (b.1805) (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

user removed from cat, see talk page. DES ^(talk) 18:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to have my username removed from this category. As I argue on my talk page, I believe there were no grounds for putting it on the list in the first place. Could anyone please let me know what to do? I would really appreciate it. D15724C710N (talk • contribs) 23:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Wikipedia's busybody army has really gone the way of the Nazis in the last few years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.65.187 (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing this category without proper investigation

I added Template:uw-coi-username to User talk:Grue kommune because its name equals that of an organization. Still, this category was removed by HJ Mitchell, and repeated attempts (and here) to alert the administrator that there is valid concern is being neglected. OK, so I'm being told to take the issue to WP:RFC/N, which in itself may well be appropriate advise. However, I do not think it is appropriate when Mitchell is summarily removing the category and disregarding information that insists this username is problematic. __meco (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a huge purge of this category occurring right now (by Avicennasis), and none of the names (that I listed) have been dealt with in any way. Now it is certainly possible that they all have not edited since notification, so maybe that's the reasoning behind the purge. It would be nice to know, however. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it was. :-) I try to remove stale reports, as the instructions say on the cat page. Currently, I've been using 15 days with no action as a "stale" report, and have been trying to keep the category clean. Suggestions/input is always welcome - I was considering a bot for this task. ^Avic_ennasis @ 06:12, 20 Tamuz 5771 / 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Rename category: "Usernames eliciting concern"

I suggest renaming this category as "Usernames eliciting concern".

1. The present category name "Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over" is too long.
2. Parsing "Wikipedian usernames editors" may take a second reading: Like non-metallic umlauts, trivariate noun concatenation Teutonicisms belong on German Wikipedia.
3. Finally, "expressed concern over" triggers the Latinate concern over ending phrases with prepositions.

Thanks for your consideration.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Dated categories

Is there anyway to get this to sort into daily categories like many other administration related cats? It would make monitoring warned users for activity much easier. Danger (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how easy/practical that would be, but I do have AvicBot dump a report at User:Avicennasis/reports/uaa. You could compare diffs from midnight to midnight, or whenever, to see recent additions to the category that way. ^Avic_ennasis @ 01:32, 26 Elul 5771 / 01:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That's also helpful. Thanks.--Danger (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone seems to have misplaced a preposition...

Someone with enough know-how, please rename this category to "Wikipedian usernames over which editors have expressed concern" or something along those lines. Call me a pedant but the preposition at the end of the current title makes me sick! Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've started a CFD here about it. ^Avic_ennasis @ 04:39, 12 Sivan 5772 / 04:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 79#Feedback request - bot to maintain CAT:UAA and similar categories

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 79#Feedback request - bot to maintain CAT:UAA and similar categories * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

What to do in case of inactivity of a user?

So, I'm a newbie here, having never worked with username policy violations before. I took a look at one, User:AlmisGroup, which is here as the username implies it is a group rather than an individual editing—a no-no. However, the account made one edit in article space six months ago and nothing since then. Is this long enough to consider the account inactive? Or should we wait 12 or 18 months for that to be a hypothesis? Second, if the account is determined to be inactive, what approach should be taken? Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I’d leave it alone. They haven’t edited since being warned that their name may be against policy (in July). Also their edits do not help establish a case for a blatant violation of the policy that needs administrative action, e.g. a block, N.J.A. | talk 16:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

.. 86.19.174.78 (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)