| Revision as of 23:57, 23 November 2013 view sourceNorshima alinog (talk | contribs)22 edits →Virgil Duad: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:03, 28 December 2024 view source Beeblebrox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators112,644 edits →Declined and stale reports: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-protected|small=yes}} | |||
| ⚫ | {{ |
||
| {{talk header|archives=no|search=no}} | |||
| {{Policy-talk}} | |||
| ⚫ | {{Policy-talk|WT:U|WT:UPOL}} | ||
| {{archives |auto=yes |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot II |age=21 |index=/Archive index}} | |||
| {{collapse top|{{-r|Misplaced Pages Talk:Usernames for administrator attention}} and {{-r|Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names}} now redirect here. Click "show" for archive links and other relevant information on those pages.}} | |||
| ⚫ | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| ] archives: | |||
| ⚫ | |maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
| *] | |||
| ⚫ | |counter = |
||
| *] | |||
| ⚫ | |minthreadsleft = |
||
| *] | |||
| ⚫ | |algo = old( |
||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ⚫ | }} | ||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ] archives and deletion notices: | |||
| {{oldmfd|date= 12 October 2007 |result= no consensus |votepage=Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names (3rd nomination)}} | |||
| {{oldmfd|date= 28 April 2007 |result= Keep with option |votepage= Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names (2nd nomination) }} | |||
| {{oldmfd|date= 4 April 2007 |result= reform |votepage= Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names }} | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| <div id="talk" class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; text-align: center; padding:1em; clear: both; background-color: #F1F1DE">]</div> | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | ||
| |target = /Archive index | |target = /Archive index | ||
| Line 15: | Line 31: | ||
| |indexhere = yes | |indexhere = yes | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| ⚫ | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| ⚫ | | algo = old(90d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| ⚫ | |counter = 27 | ||
| |headerlevel = 2 | |||
| ⚫ | |maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| ⚫ | | minthreadsleft = 2 | ||
| |archiveheader = {{tan}} | |||
| ⚫ | }} | ||
| {{archives}} | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12#Username policy}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style=white-space:nowrap;>] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">]</span></span> 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == AGF message for semi-"well-known" people == | |||
| == shared accounts ''vs.'' shared IP addresses == | |||
| ] says that editors whose username matches that of a well-known person "may" be blocked, and that verifying identity must be done "in some cases", and the standard practice seems to be not to block someone who is only marginally well-known and an unlikely target for impersonation, especially if their edits don't seem problematic. | |||
| A shared account is forbidden; a {{tl|Shared IP}} may receive a template encouraging continued editing. An says the prohibition is "for reasons of attribution and accountability", yet in the example given, "Secretary of the XY Foundation", the changes could reasonably be attributed to the XY Foundation as the work of its employee. When someone edits from a shared IP address, it's likely to be impractical to discover the person's identity. When someone makes a pseudonymous account (such as mine) it's at best inconvenient. The policy seems counter to its formerly stated purpose, and currently has no stated purpose. | |||
| Prompted by ] with {{u|Just Step Sideways}} and {{u|Secretlondon}}, I was wondering if there any consensus to include more detail on cases in which we shouldn't block, or if that would that be ]? | |||
| The editor from {{User|Creative Concrete Products, LLC}} wanted to disclose a conflict of interest, but got after a single "getting started" edit; the lengthy discussion must have consumed a great deal of other contributors' time. Someone from ] also tried to disclose a COI but ran afoul of the policy, attracting blocks for editing as {{User|Suburban express}} and {{User|Suburban Express President}}. Another example is {{User|Whiopower}}, whose connection to ] is less apparent under the new username. | |||
| Even if we don't include extra detail here, I created {{tl|Uw-agf-wellknown}} as an alternative to {{tl|Uw-ublock-wellknown}}. Is there any objection to proposing this this template for inclusion in our standard list of warning templates and/or incorporating it into Twinkle? <span class="nowrap">--] (])</span> 16:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This part of the policy seems like it may be doing more harm than good. Am I missing something? —] 04:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think "block first and let VRT sort it out" is the best way forward. I do agree that asking them to verify their identity is probably a good idea (regardless of ''how'' notable they are). I'm not opposed to the nicer message, especially since it is in a similar vein to {{t|Uw-coi-username}}. ] (]) 17:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The idea, for me, is that we don't want people editing their article with the authority of claiming to be the subject. Most of the COI-not-username cases are of people who are non-notable. It really doesn't matter if they are the real person or not if they are not anyone in particular. I push back against people wanting to block COI spammers as a username violation - there really is no doubt they are John Doe (rapper), and asking them to prove they are doesn't make any difference. If they become notable it is different. If John Doe is being irritating we block them for what they done (link spam etc) not pretending that we are worried they are impersonating themselves. ] (]) 17:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::To follow on from that - we get a lot of stage names/online handles of YouTubers. We'd never ask them to prove they are who they claim to be. These are just COI. We just don't vet randoms like this. ] (]) 17:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Obviously if User: Mr Beast starts editing his article then we'd block as impersonation until proved otherwise. ] (]) 17:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think the line for blocking is/should be at "famous" as opposed to just well-known. If someone is claiming to be Beyonce, they are probably lying. ] ] 20:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Noting for the record that, {{user|Orangemike}} went ahead and blocked the account that prompted this discussion, despite the fact that the account had made no edits since I dropped a note on their talk page about the name. ] ] 16:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes I saw.. ] (]) 17:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::] feels like confirmation enough for me (see the return email address) so I've unblocked. ] (]) 22:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I don't have access to VRT but there was never really any doubt. ] (]) 08:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Illegible usernames == | ||
| I recently encountered a sig which I was unable to read because of the color patterns, and left ] on their Talk page. I found nothing in the policy that seems to cover this, so it seems permissible currently. I would assume that styling one's sig, say, in white-on-white font (not the case here) would be unacceptable, but there isn't really anything about that, afaict. It seems to me we should add something to the policy about illegible signatures, but I don't think we have to enumerate all the ways someone could obscure their sig, because someone will always find some other way; it would be sufficient to have a catch-all saying that signatures styled in such a way that an editor could not easily determine the username, should be forbidden. I am not overly concerned with the case of the individual editor I messaged; my main concern is having something in the policy I can link or quote to a user when an illegible sig is at issue. ] (]) 04:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| There have been some confusing user names since full Unicode support was implemented. I suggest requiring that Misplaced Pages user names be required to meet the IDNA 2008 criteria for domain names, with the addition of single spaces. IDNA 2008 is a collection of technical rules designed to prevent the abuse of Unicode to create two strings that look the same but are different. Code is available to enforce these rules. Basically, this means you can't mix certain characters in the same name, you can't mix left-to-right and right-to-left scripts, and certain ] are prohibited. Any name that fails these tests is doing something really weird with Unicode, and is probably not typable from its visible form. --] (]) 05:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :This sounds like a ] issue. ] (]) 06:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed; signature customisation is allowed until someone finds issue with it; nothing wrong with saying to someone "I can't read your sig", goodness knows I've done plenty of that over the years. ] (]) 12:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Old revisions show newer reports == | ||
| Like say the , it is showing the reports bots made at 15 November. ] ] 05:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ... but someone might want to check edits and username. Sorry if this is the wrong platform for this comment. Thanks, --<font color="navy">]</font> <sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 22:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :If you want old bot-reported data, you'll need to check the history of ]. ] (]) 14:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Reported ] (]) 00:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, so it is transcluded, ok, thanks. ] ] 14:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Declined and stale reports == | |||
| == Gibberish == | |||
| Should we run a bot to remove declined and stale reports from ]? Currently, HBC AIV helperbot14 only removes processed reports, so we have to manually remove declined and stale ones. I suggest removing declined reports that haven't received any comments within an hour, and stale reports with no comments in the past 24 hours. If HBC AIV helperbot14 can add this functionality, that would be great. Otherwise, I can assist with my bot. – ] <small>(])</small> 12:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| So I noticed a few things in the archive about gibberish names but I wanted to clarify before I notify the user for possibly breaking the username policy. Does Misplaced Pages allow gibberish names? Thanks in advance. ] (]) 03:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Huh, I thought that was already part of the functionality. Courtesy ping to {{u|Mdann52}}. ] (]) 13:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : In general, if it's made out of letters and numbers, and not confusingly similar to something else, gibberish usernames are allowed. Policy on characters difficult to type on most keyboards is still undecided. That said, gibberish usernames may indicate mechanically generated spam accounts, so they can be regarded as initially suspicious. See for a classic case of this. --] (]) 07:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :@] Sorry on my Christmas break still! | |||
| :: Thanks for the help and for the reference! I wasn't sure if this fell into the list of "distracting" usernames or not but for future reference I'll assume good faith until I notice a bad edit. Thanks again! ] (]) 02:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think this was a feature of the old bot, I'll go back and check. | |||
| :If we're happy to add removing declined as a feature and a change in behaviour, I'll look into this. | |||
| :I'd rather have some more discussion on how to deal with stale reports first, and when we determine this. ] (]) 00:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think an hour is far too brief of a time. And as far as I can recall, declined reports have been being manually removed for a very long time. We don't remove them immediately as to give the reporting user time to seer why their report was declined. However I wouldn't object to automatic removal of a report that has been declined with one of the standard templates indicating as much after a period of a few hours. | |||
| ::I'm not sure what we are talking about as regards "stale" reports. Does this mean reports that have sat for a while without an admin response? ] ] 01:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC relating to enforcement of this policy == | |||
| == Virgil Duad == | |||
| See ]. ] ] 21:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| corps commander at citizenship advancement training in araullo high school. | |||
Latest revision as of 01:03, 28 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Username policy page. |
|
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. | Shortcuts |
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Index
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
"Username policy" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Username policy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12 § Username policy until a consensus is reached. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
AGF message for semi-"well-known" people
WP:IMPERSONATE says that editors whose username matches that of a well-known person "may" be blocked, and that verifying identity must be done "in some cases", and the standard practice seems to be not to block someone who is only marginally well-known and an unlikely target for impersonation, especially if their edits don't seem problematic.
Prompted by this discussion on UAA with Just Step Sideways and Secretlondon, I was wondering if there any consensus to include more detail on cases in which we shouldn't block, or if that would that be WP:BEANS?
Even if we don't include extra detail here, I created {{Uw-agf-wellknown}} as an alternative to {{Uw-ublock-wellknown}}. Is there any objection to proposing this this template for inclusion in our standard list of warning templates and/or incorporating it into Twinkle? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think "block first and let VRT sort it out" is the best way forward. I do agree that asking them to verify their identity is probably a good idea (regardless of how notable they are). I'm not opposed to the nicer message, especially since it is in a similar vein to {{Uw-coi-username}}. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- The idea, for me, is that we don't want people editing their article with the authority of claiming to be the subject. Most of the COI-not-username cases are of people who are non-notable. It really doesn't matter if they are the real person or not if they are not anyone in particular. I push back against people wanting to block COI spammers as a username violation - there really is no doubt they are John Doe (rapper), and asking them to prove they are doesn't make any difference. If they become notable it is different. If John Doe is being irritating we block them for what they done (link spam etc) not pretending that we are worried they are impersonating themselves. Secretlondon (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- To follow on from that - we get a lot of stage names/online handles of YouTubers. We'd never ask them to prove they are who they claim to be. These are just COI. We just don't vet randoms like this. Secretlondon (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously if User: Mr Beast starts editing his article then we'd block as impersonation until proved otherwise. Secretlondon (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think the line for blocking is/should be at "famous" as opposed to just well-known. If someone is claiming to be Beyonce, they are probably lying. Just Step Sideways 20:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Noting for the record that, Orangemike (talk · contribs) went ahead and blocked the account that prompted this discussion, despite the fact that the account had made no edits since I dropped a note on their talk page about the name. Just Step Sideways 16:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I saw.. Secretlondon (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- ticket:2024110610009272 feels like confirmation enough for me (see the return email address) so I've unblocked. Primefac (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have access to VRT but there was never really any doubt. Secretlondon (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- ticket:2024110610009272 feels like confirmation enough for me (see the return email address) so I've unblocked. Primefac (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I saw.. Secretlondon (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Noting for the record that, Orangemike (talk · contribs) went ahead and blocked the account that prompted this discussion, despite the fact that the account had made no edits since I dropped a note on their talk page about the name. Just Step Sideways 16:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think the line for blocking is/should be at "famous" as opposed to just well-known. If someone is claiming to be Beyonce, they are probably lying. Just Step Sideways 20:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously if User: Mr Beast starts editing his article then we'd block as impersonation until proved otherwise. Secretlondon (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- To follow on from that - we get a lot of stage names/online handles of YouTubers. We'd never ask them to prove they are who they claim to be. These are just COI. We just don't vet randoms like this. Secretlondon (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Illegible usernames
I recently encountered a sig which I was unable to read because of the color patterns, and left this message on their Talk page. I found nothing in the policy that seems to cover this, so it seems permissible currently. I would assume that styling one's sig, say, in white-on-white font (not the case here) would be unacceptable, but there isn't really anything about that, afaict. It seems to me we should add something to the policy about illegible signatures, but I don't think we have to enumerate all the ways someone could obscure their sig, because someone will always find some other way; it would be sufficient to have a catch-all saying that signatures styled in such a way that an editor could not easily determine the username, should be forbidden. I am not overly concerned with the case of the individual editor I messaged; my main concern is having something in the policy I can link or quote to a user when an illegible sig is at issue. Mathglot (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- This sounds like a WP:SIGAPP issue. Nobody (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed; signature customisation is allowed until someone finds issue with it; nothing wrong with saying to someone "I can't read your sig", goodness knows I've done plenty of that over the years. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Old revisions show newer reports
Like say the 8 November version, it is showing the reports bots made at 15 November. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 05:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you want old bot-reported data, you'll need to check the history of Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot. Primefac (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, so it is transcluded, ok, thanks. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 14:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Declined and stale reports
Should we run a bot to remove declined and stale reports from UAA? Currently, HBC AIV helperbot14 only removes processed reports, so we have to manually remove declined and stale ones. I suggest removing declined reports that haven't received any comments within an hour, and stale reports with no comments in the past 24 hours. If HBC AIV helperbot14 can add this functionality, that would be great. Otherwise, I can assist with my bot. – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Huh, I thought that was already part of the functionality. Courtesy ping to Mdann52. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @DreamRimmer Sorry on my Christmas break still!
- I don't think this was a feature of the old bot, I'll go back and check.
- If we're happy to add removing declined as a feature and a change in behaviour, I'll look into this.
- I'd rather have some more discussion on how to deal with stale reports first, and when we determine this. Mdann52 (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think an hour is far too brief of a time. And as far as I can recall, declined reports have been being manually removed for a very long time. We don't remove them immediately as to give the reporting user time to seer why their report was declined. However I wouldn't object to automatic removal of a report that has been declined with one of the standard templates indicating as much after a period of a few hours.
- I'm not sure what we are talking about as regards "stale" reports. Does this mean reports that have sat for a while without an admin response? El Beeblerino 01:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
RFC relating to enforcement of this policy
See Misplaced Pages:Username policy/ORGNAME/G11 in sandboxes RFC. El Beeblerino 21:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)