Problem: Usernames are always saved in the blocklog and other logs, some usernames should not be visible in the log. Logs must all be deleted individually.
Who would benefit: Sysops
Proposed solution: On the page "Special:block" the possibility to hide / suppress (for Oversighters) the username in all logs.
There's multiple variants that could be explored here such as suppressing the username in rollbacks, log entries, etc. That being said, I hope this would continue to remain an oversight-only function since hideuser is generally restricted to oversighters. --Rschen7754 01:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By hide, I mean the same effect as log deletion. And suppression should of course continue to be carried out by Oversigthers.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫👤💬 08:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Three months ago I assessed the presence of just two offensive usernames on en-wiki with a view to collating them for mass-deletion/hiding. The task is huge: I found over 180 blocked account names beginning with the highly objectionable term 'Nigger...', and a further 169 blocked accounts starting with the similarly offensive 'Cunt...'. There are many, many more. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a good idea for user names which are clearly obscene. This should be a BureaucratSteward level privilege. Probably replace obscene username with something like "User:BLOCKED123ABC" or something like that. Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 16:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea indeed as RDing logs can be painful. @Cocoaguy: Why crat? Firstly, crat cannot rename already, that needs a Global Renamer or Steward, in addition, blocked users are typically not allowed renames. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny I actually was originally going to write Steward but changed my mind for some reason. But doesn't there need to be some placeholder at least for the bolcked user, and to prevent someone else from trying to create an account with the same name. Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 18:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. When hiding the username we don't move the username, the username is still there, but just not visible to non-admins. So there isn't a need for a rename, neither the need for placeholder. @CocoaguyCamouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there was a request in Phabricator to split the Hideuser function into an admin-level function (basically vanilla block+revdel of the username) and an oversighter-level function (like current Hideuser). I see MarcoAurelio linked it above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A sysop-level hidding in Block for abusive names that while not meeting the Oversight policy criteria should be hidden as well. This should probably be hooked in CentralAuth too so "hidden" locks trigger this kind of blocks as well. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It could be useful for developers of the blacklist. Also, I personally don't mind the username sitting in the block log. Firestar464 (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Having to manually find a log event and RD it is a pain in the you know what. I would love if the process was streamlined. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Almost every day I come to need such a tool in my patrolling work. I think the tool must only be used by patrollers, admins and higher, and that IPs could be watched too alongside authenticated users. Gikü (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I do not think that it is much of a problem to have inappropriate names in a block log. It would be confusing for possible future conversations about inappropriate names. For example, if someone wanted to research the prevalence of the highly questionable term Faggot in usernames, under this policy, these names would be deleted, making it impossible to learn about past naming. Also, the block log is a block log for a reason, it is where inappropriate things go to die, if someone does not wish to be insulted, they should not venture into the block log. More reverence needs to be given to the concept of complete deletion. JazzClam (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Humans are worse than your oversimplified example. — regards, Revi 16:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support use of Support template under protest (I generally refuse to use template), as usual. — regards, Revi 16:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Stryn (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose It could be useful for developers of the blacklist. Also, I personally don't mind the username sitting in the block log. Firestar464 (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
