Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

What are the community's thoughts about usernames which imply authority or expertise -- such as "Dr John Smith" or "Prof Joanna Smythe" -- without providing proof of that authority or expertise on the user's page? I'm not thinking about the many names which utilize "Doc" in one form or another, but those which seem deliberately made so as to provide the upper hand in discussions and disputes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you don't mean "Dr John Smith" edits Black Sabbath? - FlightTime (open channel) 00:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, "Dr John Smith" edits medical articles and "Prof Joanna Smythe" edits articles in their field. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Johnny Fever, however, might well edit Black Sabbath. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of this is a UPOL, however there might be something on the "COI/personal knowledge" realm. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think these would be policy violations. If they try to use their alleged credentials to sway content, that wouldn't be ok regardless of user name. That was established a long time ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed User:Q28's addition of a link to a new page they created, Wikipedia:Recommend user name; I agree with Primefac's earlier revert in that it does not appear ready for use. Specific concerns:

• Some parts of the page are difficult to understand (what is "Your Yawn"?)
• I'm not sure we should be recommending three-letter gibberish usernames to new editors
• There does not appear to be an existing issue that this page is designed to solve

DanCherek (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an ongoing deletion discussion that watchers of this policy page may be interested in. SN54129 16:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I've deleted it per WP:G3: blatant and obvious misinformation. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Well deleted. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've created User:DanCherek/UAABotRemover, a user script that makes it easier to remove false positive usernames at WP:UAA that are reported by DeltaQuadBot. Special:Diff/1071431601 is an example of an edit made using this script. Feel free to try it out and let me know if you run into any issues (I'm pretty new to user scripts and JavaScript in general), or have any suggestions for improvement. DanCherek You Are top dick sucker congrats

I chanced upon an established account that's been used for flurries of activity starting in 2008, then 2014, and February 2022, all loosely within the same academic topic area. The most-recent user has stated: "I work in the Marketing department at Nottingham Trent University.", and "I'm new to Wikipedia, so unsure of processes".

This account is therefore multiple user, and CoI. WP:UAA states (emboldened as per original): "Sharing issues are not for UAA". Template {{WelcomeCOI}} states "One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing." As there was already a CoI-related post from 2008, I used {{uw-coi}} without the welcome, which in turn does not display the latter quotation mentioning blocking, so I have expounded upon this in my messages.

I have posted to an admin's Talk page with no response after two days. I wanted guidance concerning the new user's future status (whom I've requested to desist from further editing until advised, and not to edit directly to the employer's business) and blocking the username, per policy. I am aware of soft block.

WP:UAA also states: "We do not want to drive promising editors away.". I have striven to be tactful and tentative - full Talk discussion can be seen at User talk:Ntucadbe#Conflict of interest editing.

To me, this seems that UAA trumps COIN. Neither is it AN/I. Please advise how to progress this. Note - the admin who's not responded is a Teahouser.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a previous discussion on usernames starting with an asterisk, a hash/pound symbol, or a colon? It appears from this discussion that magic words like {{REVISIONUSER}} can, in some cases, get confused when user names of that sort are used, starting a bulleted list, for example, instead of returning a username. It is also possible that Template:AfC submission/declined is just badly coded, but it looks pretty reasonable to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions)#Restrictions_on_usernames it looks like two of those options aren't even allowed. I'll be honest I'm a bit surprised that * is acceptable, but other than weird glitches with {{REVISIONUSER}} where does this pop up? Primefac (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 1500 global users that start with "*". — xaosflux ^Talk 14:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than Treker are there any that are active and/or not blocked? I ask mainly because the comment was made "we don't want to make everyone change their names", but if there's only a handful of users, it should be trivial to ask them to change their names and then softblock everyone else (assuming a technical fix isn't found). Primefac (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re where else it's a problem: There is a discussion on *Treker's talk page about how they weren't receiving pings, but I don't have a way to verify whether the asterisk was causing a problem in that case. Maybe they will see this ping and respond here. (edited to add: It looks like the asterisk causes a problem in {{U}}, since this response is interrupted by a newline starting with a bullet.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your {{u}} call since it's breaking things. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add the equals sign (=) to the list of discouraged characters. Some time ago I happened to fix a linking error (with the {{u}} or {{re}} template) to a user whose username contains this symbol, which causes a misinterpretation of the username as a template's named parameter. --CiaPan (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm personally quite attached to my username (as it is a pun of sorts) but if it is agreed that "*" should not be used I will agree to change it.★Trekker (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I note the use of * in their signature to actually allow linking, similar to how to 7&6=thirteen needs to use & in their sig. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine a wrapper for {{REVISIONUSER}} (and for |1= in {{User link}}) that would cause the user name to be "literalized" (for lack of a better word) so that characters in the user name won't cause this trouble. Is there a string-processing template or magic word that will do that for us? – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem best to just restrict the usage (and move any username currently using these) instead of patching one template at a time. Gonnym (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Username ending in semicolon

While we're here, the user name User:Assert(false); causes problems for me. When I manage to find their contributions, clicking on User:Assert(false); from that page leads to User:Assert(false), complete with an error message saying that the user is not registered on this wiki. The trailing semicolon is trimmed. Is this a MediaWiki bug, or the result of a security patch sometime between the editor's last activity in 2016 and today? Either way, some action probably needs to happen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's messed up. It's nearly impossible to even get to their user page, the talk page appear to exist but I can't open it. If this account were active now I think we'd pretty much have to block it. I may do it anyway, this is clearly not acceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the policy, but can we simply rename the account for technical reasons? My guess is that this account used to work, and a MW change caused it to break. I suppose we could also file a phab bug report, but I haven't had good results in getting those addressed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

xkcd oblink. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good old Bobby Tables! I forgot about him. The task has been marked as a duplicate of a November 2019 task, which has seen no updates from developers since October 2020. This means that we are on our own here and need to make local accommodations, whether that is an account rename or something else. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: You can get to their user pages by opening a history of any page and replacing the page title in the URL. Then you can jump to any chosen revision, including the current one:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Assert(false);&action=history → Special:PermaLink/691187016, Special:PermaLink/727826156
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Assert(false);&action=history → Special:PermaLink/675611790, Special:PermaLink/1072065308

CiaPan (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell from reading the phab ticket, the key thing in all of these is that the ";" isn't part of the base URL. Once you move it into the query string, that hides the ";" from the bit of software which barfs on it. So https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Assert(false); works too. Well, it does if you copy-paste that from the wikitext source into a browser's URL bar, but it looks like the link is not going to get rendered correctly :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Affected users

There seems to be an emerging consensus above to just restrict use of these names (specifically, * at the front and ; at the back). Other than *Treker, which users are/will be affected by any sort of username blacklist/changes? For the record I'm assuming these users to be a) unblocked, and b) active at some point in the last 1-3 years. Primefac (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Wikipedia can restrict a character set accepted from the registration form quite easily, but renaming existing accounts is completely another matter. There would have to be some way to inform affected users about a need of renaming their accounts OR about renaming done without their participation. The former way may not work in all cases, because users are not forced to register their e-mail contact, nor they are obliged to regularly check their inbox. And even if they do, they may simply refuse. The latter way would need keeping both accounts associated until the user logs in with their old account and then inform them about the rename done, consequently forcing all future log-ins to be redirected to a new account. Both methods look quite ...unkind to users. The latter, however, has already been tested during implementing central login, when conflicting accounts from Wikipedias in different languages were renamed to unique names. And it somehow worked. CiaPan (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Badly affected by this problem is Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of **sammy** Dawson., whose entire wikitext is {{sockpuppet category}}, and generates 6 stripped </span>, 3 missing end tags for <span>, and 3 HTML5-misnested <span> tags. There really is a User:**sammy** Dawson. page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed that page, but it would be great to avoid future instances of this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the usage of a real name may not be the recommended way to name yourself, are potential users whose real names would otherwise violate the rules about inappropriate usernames allowed to create accounts with their name?

A potential way to avoid this would be to use their name formatted or spelled in a way that suggests that they are real names rather than something else, although this might suggest evasion of these rules.

(see Scunthorpe problem) Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to say that anybody with the (extremely rare) Scunthorpe problem would be well-advised just to choose another username. If they insist on using the problematic name as a username, I would assume that they are attempting to make a point, and allow things to flow forward as they usually do in such situations. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We also do try to be aware of some problematic words that are genuinely part of real names, see User:AmandaNP/UAA/Blacklist where some are annotated (from a cursory glance, "shit", "nazi", "porn", and "bich") as common strings/substrings in real names from certain regions. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it a tiebreaker, not carte blanche to ignore the policy. I see it along the lines of WP:BIODEL. If there's a clear consensus or policy call one way or the other, it should stand. If it's borderline then such reasoning can move the needle in the user's favor. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a matter of interpretation to be sure, not a slam dunk in either direction. If you claim "AdolfHitler42069" is your real name, I won't be inclined to believe it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, unless you're from Namibia... ;-) Primefac (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently this page only mentions the merging of accounts in a single line, with no clarification made to its definition. As such, what exactly a "merge" is remains vague:

• Does it refer to one registered account being merged into another, or two existing accounts being merged into a new, third account?
• Would "merging" simply be the transferring of wiki contributions and log actions from one account to another, or are there other notable changes which are made (one minor point being are the histories of user pages and talk pages merged, or left separate (with any such merging left up to the user in question), or would this be up to the user in question?)?
• Would transferring an unregistered user/IP's contributions to a registered account also fall under "merging"?

If these points are relevant to the merging of accounts, I'd recommend listing them on this page rather than just having a throwaway sentence which is ultimately left up to interpretation; if they're not relevant to this page, then I'd recommend listing them on another, more fitting page if not already mentioned somewhere, and then linking to that page to alleviate any confusion.

(And yes, I'm looking to create an account at some point and have the associated contributions from my frequently-shifting IP address (I just noticed it changed again while previewing this edit) relocated to such an account, hence why I consulted this page, but ultimately couldn't find exactly what I was looking for, hence the clarification I'm requesting.) - 2.126.98.218 (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merging simply refers to combining two existing accounts. Accounts can be renamed, but this is not merging. Contributions cannot be transferred from one account to another existing account, or from an IP address to an account. An account is free to identify any contributions made under IP addresses as having been made by them(though one might not want to do that). 331dot (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit has some information about an old process in which a developer would manually associate past IP edits with a username, but they stopped doing that in 2005. DanCherek (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I'd recommend clarifying this on the page as to alleviate any further confusion. A quick draft is below (which replaces the existing single sentence regarding merging), although something better could probably be devised: - 2A02:C7E:178F:5900:58E0:8F6E:3FE4:C416 (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am not seeing the source of confusion here. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't either, "merge" is a common and widely understood word. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request 2022-02-20

Merging of accounts on the English Wikipedia is not currently possible: two registered accounts cannot be merged, nor can an unregistered account be merged with a registered account. In addition, as of 2005, contributions made under one account cannot be transferred to another account.

Hello! So recently I've seen people report users with usernames such as "Samsung Galaxy" or "Ford Explorer" (these are simply just random examples not actually one's i've seen) because they think they're considered promotional, and they're always declined because they aren't username vios. Is this clarified in the username policy at all, and if not should it? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGNAME indicates that if a person has a "promotional" name such as those you have given, but does not edit anywhere around that topic area, they should be encouraged to change their name but it is not required. Primefac (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze Wolf - Personally, I'd let those usernames that you gave an example of slide by fine, unless they start editing in those topic areas or edit blatantly promotional. It's unlikely that this is actually someone from Ford or Samsung. However, I keep my eyes out for usernames that are of companies that are pretty likely small or non-notable. Awesome House Painters, LLC, Tim's Grocery Store GMBH, I wash cats, Pvt Ltd. These are examples of usernames that I soft-block based off of my intuition and years of experience with advertising and promotion. Big companies with big products that are pretty well-known globally don't need to make a Wikipedia account to advertise how awesome their iPhone SX5050 Second Edition Mk II is. It happens... sometimes, and I've caught those potatoes over the years that I've been an editor here. It does exist, but not nearly to the level that the examples I gave here. These examples are nobody-knows-about-you-like-at-all-ever small businesses that are only here to promote their business because they feel that they need to. I'd say that a good 85-90% of those kinds of usernames, where they're small businesses with the owner's name in it, a name that sounds local to an area, or something like Oshwah Will Pick Up Your Groceries And Deliver Them To Your Grandmother Services, PLC (Yes, I will do that for you and for a reasonable price and I have a website! oshwahwillpickupyourgroceriesanddeliverthemtoyourgrandmotherservicesplc.co.uk! DOWNLOAD MY APP AND ORDER TODAY!) will engage in advertising and promotion on Wikipedia, which is why I soft-block those when I see them. With respect to your question, it is not clear per policy on how they should be delt, but we encourage users with usernames to change them. Except for when I don't. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be tolerance in this area. My real life surname happens to be a well known brand. My full name is also that a of a well known person. (I had the name first!) Some here choose to register with their real names. I've often wondered what would have happened if I had done so. And I could not also help wondering if Ford Prefect would be an acceptable user name. HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You probably would have been temporarily blocked and asked to contact VRTS if that really was your real name. It happens surprisingly often (for both people-who-are-the-subject as well as just unfortunate coincidences) so we're pretty good about resolving the issue. Primefac (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48 - Oh, absolutely! I agree. I usually look for full brand names and words that are obviously a brand. Take a look at edit filter #54, an edit filter that I wrote. I made it public so that you can see the code; I really think it can stay that way, but let me sleep on it. You'll see exactly what I look for. First, they have to create an account here; it doesn't flag a global account created on another project. It looks for legal entities, and obvious words that are 90% likely to be an account that is representing a business. Do some false positives appear? Sure, some... But that's why the filter does nothing but log events that are matches so that they can be reviewed. It takes no action against the user (in fact, none of my much bigger filters that hunt LTA activity do). I hope this gives you a good perspective of what I look for. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: I reverted your edit here, which removed the following text from the policy:

Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username.

This is a longstanding text of the username policy that appears to stem from this 2011 edit by Xeno. In my view, it reflects expected practice on Wikipedia. We should not be blocking accounts unless they are actively disrupting Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For illustration, we have established editors with usernames that match a particular product or service, e.g. CodeLyoko (see Code Lyoko). Mz7 (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mz7 - That's completely fair. Thank you for doing this. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is for sure an area where administrative judgement and discretion come into play. I don't think the rules need to be any more or less explicit than they already are. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've had an increasing number of accounts that are being globally locked before they've been actioned here. That's fine, if they are being blocked for actions of multiple wikipedias, but some of them have only had edits on en! Secretlondon (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably best discussed at WP:AN as it doesn't really pertain to the username policy. That said, a global lock can only be done by a steward, and they aren't casually handed out. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is also the talk page for Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, which is a bit confusing. Secretlondon (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Secretlondon: Yes.. it is a bit confusing, least of all because you're replying to yourself..? ~TNT (talk • she/her) 20:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was intended for 331dot's message ... Sdrqaz (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh I see now, Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention redirects here! That is a bit confusing! As to your query Secretlondon, some accounts (such as the one reported here) will be locked solely based on the username, or the fact the underlying LTA is evading a previous lock, irrespective of the number of projects they have edited ~TNT (talk • she/her) 20:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help (if it is possible) to adjust the relevant bots – DeltaQuadBot and HBC AIV helperbot5 – to remove reports of locked accounts, in addition to blocked ones? DanCherek (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure it would be possible, I think it's fine if we block locally as well. When appealing a global lock, the appelant is expected to to have already appealed any local blocks, so this gives individual projects autonomy. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if anyone else is experiencing this, I use the script that draws a like through the usernames of blocked users, and it has stopped working, but only at UAA/Bot, which I find very weird. I keep clicking on names on the bot list in particular, only to find that they've already been blocked, so it's kinda wasting my time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked and popups, the other way to get that information without clicking through, aren't working there either. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing "blocked" "has blocks" etc in navpopups. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. There's no blocked names on the list at the moment, but I tried opening an old revision and popups are working for me on everything except the usernames, and the script isn't striking the blocked ones out. If this is just me, I'll probably just have to live with it as I have no clue what is going on. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox is it working for you on other pages for example this one? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It worked for me when I manually put a user that is blocked on that page, look at the 3rd entry here, is it working for you? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Interestingly, it does work when I hover over your name at the top of the page, but not on any of the entries below. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: This appears to be caused by User:DanCherek/UAABotRemover.js. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh... sorry about that, I don't know why it's doing that. DanCherek (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, that would explain it. I hadn't patrolled UAA in a bit and forgot I had that turned on. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that was it all right, turned it off and everything's back to normal. Thanks all for your input. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing occasional runs through the user creation log, and on occasion will find a new account that bears an obvious corporate name but that has not edited anywhere as of that time. I am hesitant to do anything with these, because I'm not sure whether this is a straight-up violation of the username policy that should be blocked from the get-go or whether I should drop a warning on their talk page and wait to see what happens. Case in point: I've just spotted User:Pictureperfectcommunications which matches several communications outfits when Google searched; it has yet to edit as I type, so I'm not sure whether to warn or report at this point. (Another I was going to use as an example just posted an ad on its user page.) So: where should I consider the line to be for accounts like this? Tony Fox (arf!) 05:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Fox, my thinking is that an account like this should not be reported to WP:UAA or warned or blocked until they edit. If their first edits are to declare their COI and ask for help in dealing with their COI, then a friendly request to select a policy compliant username is the appropriate response, followed by other advice about our policies and guidelines. If, on the other hand, their first edits are to try to insert overtly promotional or spam content, then an immediate indefinite block is justified. The first few edits usually reveal a lot about intentions and inform the decision to warn, soft block or hard block. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they haven't edited yet, drop a {{uw-coi-username}} on their talk page; there are a surprisingly large number of new editors who don't know you're not allowed to have usernames like that. Primefac (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]