The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. 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.
The username Iamnotblocked123 seems to be a challenge to the administrative oversight of Wikipedia. If that is the case, an ordinary user raising the matter on the user's talkpage does not really seem appropriate – and I am not 100% sure that we have an issue here in the first place. Hence flagging here for someone with more experience in the matter to take a look at. ThoughtIdRetiredTIR 08:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion has been closed as premature. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a decade since the last major RFC on the username policy, it might not be a bad idea to consider putting together something more comprehensive like the 2014 RFC. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 02:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I will note that there have been changes made since that last reform, but they probably fall more under "tweaks" than "overhauls" (e.g. no emojis in 2017). Primefac (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Titles as potential violations of username policy
Does the use of legally protected titles such as "Dr.", "doctor," "dentist," "surgeon," "lawyer," "engineer" and "architect," which require licensure or sufficient education, violate username policy when the user is not legally entitled to describe themselves as such? One issue besides the law is that these imply a level of professional knowledge that might give them an advantage in a content dispute. In a similar vein, "professor" might be part of this list, though it is not a protected occupational title as far as my knowledge goes. Air on White (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC) edited Air on White (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, I can call myself "doctor" or "Dr.", as I have an earned PhD. I used to listen to Dr. Demento's radio show. "Engineer" is commonly used to describe someone who operates a locomotive. "Software engineer" is a common job title. We can call someone an "architect of ..." without them holding a specific degree or license. I do not see any legal restraint on someone using one of those titles in a username. We have had users who claimed expertise and qualifications that they did not actually have. Things have not always gone well for them when they were found out. But that was because of what they falsely and explicitly claimed, not because of some title they used in their username. Donald Albury 00:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A straight-up violation, no. As Donald says, there are many times when it could be used with humour or otherwise without intending to "give an advantage". Someone claiming to be an expert and not actually being one is usually quickly shut down anyway, but WP:RFCN is always available if there are issues. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Dr. Dre holds a PhD, nor Dr. J; the licensing issue refers to attempting to practice, not merely identifying one's self. Fairly sure if there were legal issues with people identifying themselves as a "doctor" the Foundation would have told us by now. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editing Bot-reported usernames?
The bots are pretty good, but you do occasionally see false-positives sneak in. Is it appropriate for non-admin editors to edit the list and remove the ones they feel are not problematic? Or do admins need to do that (such as adding the username to a whitelist or something of the sort). For example, User:CharaIOnlyMadeThisToFixOneError was reported by a bot. Their one edit was non-controversial and there's nothing really problematic about the username (it was triggered by having a long number of characters without a space). As an uninvolved non-admin, could I just wipe that out? Matt Deres (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point #7 in the UAA instructions says Patrollers are asked to remove reports that [...] are bot-reported false positives, so feel free to remove bot reports if you're confident that they're false positives (like the one you mentioned). DanCherek (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have over 300 edits at UAA/Bot I can say from personal experience that non-admins are welcome. But be sure to check the accounts for other issues as well. Block evasion, LTA, vandalism-only, spam-only are common issues with the accounts that show up there. Nobody (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
