Jump to content

User:HBC AIV helperbot12/sandbox/users/Holding pen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:HBC AIV helperbot12/sandbox/users/Holding pen/Header


April[edit]

13[edit]

22[edit]

Wait until the user edits. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 14:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Wait until the user edits. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep monitoring the user, until their username is more clear. (@Katieh5584) The only edit so far seems to be an attempt to display a 2006 copy of the mainpage instead of the regular mainpage for that account. For now there is no indication that the user is promotional or spamming. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Wait until the user edits. Daniel Case (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Wait until the user edits. Daniel Case (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Wait until the user edits. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user.. (@Ruby Murray) Another user started a discussion regarding the username, probably a good idea to wait for the results instead of straight-out blocking. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 10:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

24[edit]

Wait until the user edits. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Wait until the user edits. As the bot reminds us in situations like this, "porn" is a string found in some German and Thai names—in fact, this looks like one of the latter. Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy, but it's worth keeping an eye on their edits. One edit isn't enough for me to justify a block with this borderline username. If they continue, then block. If they start editing productively, let's persuade them to change the name. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah okay, Thanks -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see this as problematic. "Wiki" isn't a problem, and we don't have any sort of position here called "authenticator". Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Definitely editing to promote but can't see a name connection. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy, but it's worth keeping an eye on their edits. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Wait until the user edits. But I don't like where this might be going. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. In non-templated fashion. Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy, but it's worth keeping an eye on their edits. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. Since their only edit so far was to create their user page, I left a warning on their talk. Miniapolis 23:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Wait until the user edits. Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy, but it's worth keeping an eye on their edits. (@EvergreenFir) I see why this username is reported, but i would remark that "suc khoe" (Or rather: sức khỏe) is the Vietnamese word for "Health" as well. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 06:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
@Excirial: Roger that! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

25[edit]

Comment: I would hold off on this one ... "Negro" is quaint but not necessarily offensive, and someone may well be self-identifying that way. Daniel Case (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy, but it's worth keeping an eye on their edits. Based on what the editor contributed so far its plausible to assume that the account is named after a concept rather than a company. That said it is equally likely it may be a corporate account for this company, though evidence for that is circumstantial. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

28[edit]

Comment: To me, as should be obvious, use of a username with a collective noun does not necessarily imply shared use (But see WikiGroupProject, which makes this intent unmistakeable, above). Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
afc That is what their sandbox article is intended for. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Their one edit didn't suggest a connection to the Mail, and you know what? I bet they never edit again. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy, but it's worth keeping an eye on their edits. Looks OK for now. Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Please discuss this with the user first, and consider opening a community discussion at Requests for comment/User names if they disagree with your concerns. This does not to me necessarily indicate intended shared use. Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

29[edit]

Wait until the user edits. And, after that, for the rest of your life. Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. They might a class project or something, here to do some good. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Question: Lots of edits about India, indeed, but are there any that would support a username block? Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
It's the name of an Indian Non Profit Organisation.Katieh5584 (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's what you said ... but do any of the edits indicate that connection? Daniel Case (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Definitely promoting but I don't see a name connection in the edits. Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I would talk to them about changing this if they seem interested in doing more than the one vandalism revert that justified that username. Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
afc Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
afc And it was declined. The other one was good. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy, but it's worth keeping an eye on their edits. I don't see enough of a connection to the name yet, nor any edits which would trigger a block. Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


afc Daniel Case (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: It might be just a fan, and for now just adding a logo to the page is not enough to assess whether there is a connection or not. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Football club appears to be fictitious. User account may have issues, but it doesn't look like a username policy violation is one of them. --Finngall talk 22:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Clearly promotional but not close enough to the name of what she's promoting to justify a block. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy, but it's worth keeping an eye on their edits. Two edits in the past month have been good, but I agree that we can't say for sure the account isn't intended that way. Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Probably promoting but I can't see a clear name connection. Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a WP:GROUPNAME.Katieh5584 (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
First, what's your evidence for that? and second, IMO the use of a collective noun in a name does not by itself imply shared use in any event. Lots of new users do it, not least because we don't warn them in any way about the username policy on the account creation page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

30[edit]

Being discussed with the user. Let's see what happens. They might be a fan, in which case they should be encouraged to change the name to at least reflect that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

May[edit]

1[edit]

Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. I can't find anything to connect the name and the subject of the edits. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: While the word "rude" is hardly offensive enough to even IMO trigger this discussion, there may be some COI issue here if you look closely. Let's see if they make any more edits. Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

2[edit]

Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Name's not a close enough match. Daniel Case (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy. I don't think it's that disruptive, although user may get blocked for other reasons. If he doesn't, and grows up, he probably still should be asked to change the name though. Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I don't think this is blockable, as the user is not promoting any specific concern or organization, just a meme he's trying to get people to pick up. Leave it alone until and unless he recreates. Daniel Case (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

3[edit]

Not a blatant violation of the username policy. While there actually is another Swagbot account, it is followed by a four-digit string as opposed to a five-digit one. It is a distinction without a difference; we don't have a Swagbot, much less enough other accounts with this name for it to be considered confusing. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Because unlike them it doesn't refer to a specific real-world act of violence, and thanks to George W. Bush it has acquired a certain ironic comic-book quality. And in those cases I'd ask the user to consider changing it first, anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I think it's fine to have "evil" in one's username. Some people simply do it for fun. Case in point, we have an administrator named Evil Monkey (talk · contribs). --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Frankly, the names you list would be okay in my book... EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

4[edit]

Question: How so? Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

8[edit]

Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Permitted under "Mark at Alcoa"; however user should have COI explained to them. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Please discuss this with the user first, and consider opening a community discussion at Requests for comment/User names if they disagree with your concerns.In order to invoke causeblock, we need to have a specific cause the editor is promoting with the name. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep monitoring the user, until their username is more clear. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Not a blatant violation and certainly not promotional. Have suggested the editor change names. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
afc Seems to be preparing for that. Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy, but it's worth keeping an eye on their edits. @Softlavender: The edits themselves are indeed problematic, but the username on its own is not. I warned the user against using Wikipedia for promotional purposes - if this continous this can best be dealt with trough AIV Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 06:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. In non-templated fashion. Though I bet we've seen the last of them. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Good-faith contribution; posted to user's talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment: More of a joke. Have dropped a note on user's talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. Daniel Case (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep monitoring the user, until their username is more clear. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Let the mainspace article be properly prodded; let the draft one get reviewed at AfC, before we do anything, as long as they don't edit anywhere else. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
afc While he wasn't using that space, he has submitted the article. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I have to agree with it as an offensive username. Bobherry talk 17:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I think users who get blocked for offensive usernames should at least have to earn the privilege by being able to spell the offending term properly first. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: Some intentionally do not spell correctly to avoid filters and to game the system. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Oh, I know that. But to game the system properly the idea is that everyone still knows exactly what you mean (i.e., rendering "hacker" as "hax0r") which often precludes the use of a common typo. Letting that one stand makes the account creator look like an idiot, which is (I think) a more effective way of deterring him/her than a block. In this case. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
If "everyone knows exactly what you mean" then it's an offensive name. I don't see any provision in the policy for not blocking offensive usernames on the grounds of them being funny/embarrassing/clever/whatever enough. Meters (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Meters:You're missing my point. With that spelling, does everyone necessarily come to the same conclusion? Does everyone really "know exactly what you mean"? Do you see the word "synechdoche" and start going "huh uh, huh uh, huh uh, he wrote 'douche'". I think a lot of people might not make the connection unless it's pointed out to them. Daniel Case (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: We're discussing the username Fatdoche250, not any other hypothetical name that may or may not be offensive. And yes, when I see Fatdoche I immediately think Fatdouche. Three users have now stated here that they find Fatdoche250 to be an offensive username. I would think that would be enough to convince some admin to block it. Obviously you choose not not to. That's your prerogative, but I don't see why you continue to defend the name. Since you think "letting that one stand makes the account creator look like an idiot" it seems that you also recognize it as a deliberate attempt to craft an offensive name. Meters (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Names like these are often blocked for attempting to skip the filter (a la many of DeltaQuadBot's reports) a la can we get down to if this is a blockable username or not? MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) (I did this! Me!) 21:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
In the several days we have been having this discussion, this user has not edited once. I somehow think it's pointless to block him. But if the consensus is otherwise, then do it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
And, after all this debate, nobody has bothered to ask the user about his username. For all we know it may be his usual internet handle, or a nickname, or "Doche" may even be his surname.[1] Sometimes offense is in the eye of the beholder. We can't help it that some people might be offended at the name Fucking, Austria, but it happens to be the actual name of the town. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:HBC_AIV_helperbot12/sandbox/users/Holding_pen&oldid=1136219324"