Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 10

Anti-Promotional usernames?

The opposite of promotional usernames, those usernames that denigrate or serve to attack persons or companies, isn't explicitly covered under this policy, but would seem to be inappropriate per se. I noticed this after observing the edits of new User:FormerDeltaCustomer which have been solely attempts to add the external link www.deltareallysucks.com to the Delta Air Lines article. Shouldn't this type of username be covered explicitly in the policy? AUTiger » talk 20:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already covered. That user ought to be blocked for linkspamming, and that block ought to be indefinite as the username itself is part of the pattern of behavior. (Bullet point 3 under "dealing with inappropriate usernames"). Mangojuice^talk 07:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I definitely believed it was implicitly covered, but didn't see anything explicit; if the consensus is additional language is unnecessary that's fine. AUTiger » talk 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What would you do with a productive editor who has a name of "Former_Company_X_Customer", especially if that user makes no edits to any articles related to 'company_x'? I hope that blocking is last on a list. Poor behaviour gets blocked for the behaviour. Dan Beale-Cocks 11:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

They would not be blocked (though they may be encouraged to change their username). See the third bullet point under "dealing with inappropriate usernames" as referred to by Mangojuice – if a user is blocked for, say, spamming, then their username may be taken into account, and may for example allow a limited block to be extended to an indefinite one in order to disallow that username, while permitting the user to return with a more appropriate username after a short time – Gurch 13:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think FormerXXXCustomer is inherently inappropriate (until edits prove otherwise) although it raises warning flags for scrutiny. However, certain variants pretty obviously would be blockworthy on sight. e.g. DeltaSux, FireRonZook, ImpeachBush. AUTiger » talk 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Examples linked in

The examples page for usernames, suggested a while back, has been linked in. Hopefully not too prescriptive, just a simple explanation and main examples. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted. We had a long debate about the examples quite recently, they were removed deliberately and for good reason. I would have objected earlier but I haven't been on Wikipedia as much as usual due to the holidays. Mangojuice^talk 07:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked and saw discussion of specific issues (name length being one on this page) but no voices saying a general clarification was unhelpful to take note of. Link? Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Puzzling. Apparently the bot automatically archived that discussion to /Archive 9 but there was no link above. There is now. This was a long-term, consensus-based decision. Also, note the second section on the current discussion page. Mangojuice^talk 15:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad consensus can change because I think examples are very useful. While there may be a consensus to keep the examples out of the policy, I see no harm in linking an essay containing those examples to the policy. It can be marked with a tag that makes it clear it is not policy. 1 != 2 15:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Useful to who? To you? Mangojuice^talk 15:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To those who find it useful, it can be available. To those who cannot see the use, they can just not read it. 1 != 2 16:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And those who find it harmful, what should they do? I'm serious, though - who is this really useful to, because I don't believe it's needed by anyone. Certainly seasoned admins don't need it; it confuses the issue for new and/or aspiring admins, who should focus on the high-level principles not the low-level examples. For those trying to pick a username, (1) no one ever reads this policy first, and (2) a list of what not to do for them is in any case a violation of WP:BEANS. Mangojuice^talk 16:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm torn. I think the examples can provide useful clarification. However, there is also reasonably evidence that they are harmful (spurious reports from Twinkle users still come in, because the examples are still in Twinkle even if they aren't in the policy). Giving the examples any sort of "official" sanction will, in my estimation, generate that sort of problem and misunderstanding. However, without examples the policy is a little theoretical and becomes a bit too much "I know it when I see it". SamBC(talk) 18:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The examples are clearly written as principles with fairly non=contentious examples of each. A user who rejects usernames wrongly is as much open to being left a note (or explanation, or warning) as one who tags articles for deletion wrongly. We can handle both. But it's hard to improve without examples to refer to for those seeking information. We don't delete CSD because people may tag incorrectly. We teach people how to use the information given, and we put it in terms of principles that are broadly useful. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is much more akin to someone creating a bunch of speedy deletion tags for criteria that don't exist. We would delete the tags in those cases. Examples are not reasons but they will be used as reasons if they are linked in from the policy. I am happy to try to correct the behavior of those who make bad reports but having the list of examples makes it very difficult to point out the error. Yes, it says right there that people should "use common sense" and not regard these examples as prescriptive, but it's hard to tell someone not to go reporting User:Kicking222 because it's not offensive when they point to the list of examples and mention that this refers to a real-world violent action. I've tried doing this before but it's not worth it, it's too difficult. Plus, those examples REALLY need to be removed from Twinkle, which User:AzaToth has been extremely slow to do despite months worth of complaints, and putting them back in will only impede that. Mangojuice^talk 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly oppose putting back the examples. Username blocks should come from high-level policies and common sense, not from "your name sounds kind of like this one example". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You do know it when you see it. When we try to lay down strictly-defined rules for what can't be in a username, we just catch new users in traps for no good reason. The advantage of high-level rules, like what we have now, is that you can combine them with common sense and your good judgement about what will improve the encyclopedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The buying and selling of usernames.

I just saw this. The buying and selling of usernames on Wikipedia seems to be supportive of violations of WP:Sockpuppetry. Imagine: A troll doesn't NEED to gain the trust of the Wikipedia community. He can just buy an admin account on eBay. Zenwhat (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That post looks like a joke. Transfer of accounts in this way would constitute account sharing, which is already prohibited; there should be no need to mention this specifically. It's also extremely unlikely that it would actually happen – Gurch 10:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Real names stuff

As folks may have noticed, MangoJuice recently excised the statement "if your real name appears to be inappropriate, but you wish to use it, you should e-mail an administrator to work out a solution". On my user talk and the edit summary, Mango suggests that this is redundant to the section on real names. Of course, we both agree that the section on real names doesn't say the same stuff. Mango suggests that it is also unnecessary because the policy says that a real name is never inappropriate. I think that it doesn't quite ever say that, although there's an implication.

I think that something along the lines of that and the section Mango removed (and I reinserted) should be said in the real name section. The policy as it stands certainly implies that a real name may get blocked, although it should be unblocked once the person's identity is established. I think the excised section is meant to lay out a path in the situation where this can be anticipated, and dealt with in advance. It might not do it correctly, but I think something in the policy should do that. So, let's talk. SamBC(talk) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The policy doesn't say that a real name is never inappropriate. But real names are (basically) never inappropriate. A real name cannot be confusing or misleading; it's ridiculous to call it promotional even if the user creates vanity pages on themselves, and while in theory someone could have an offensive real name this doesn't actually happen. And if it did, how is some random administrator supposed to respond to an email that says "Hi, my real name is Stalin McHitler and I want to use it on Wikipedia. What should I do?" Mangojuice^talk 23:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Largely true, but some people have real names that do get brought up as problems (especially foreign names that happen to have english profanity as a substring, but also with surnames like "Cocks"). I think that what's there isn't right, but it does aim at something that should be aimed for. Say I'm a new user who is called Stalin McHitler (now you've said that, I can't think of a less silly hypothetical for offensive) or Anthony Blair or suchlike, and am actually reading WP:U before registering (it happens occaisionally). It would be nice to have some guidance as to some sort of way forward. Contacting an admin probably isn't the best path, but I think something should be said to speak to this situation. SamBC(talk) 00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a stab at rewriting now. I think I can see what the issue is. Mangojuice^talk 15:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it. I think it says what needs to be said, succinctly and without being misleading or weird. SamBC(talk) 21:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Special:Listusers

I noticed on this User talk:209.105.213.101 the template {{Schoolblock}} whcih includes a link to Special:Listusers all of which is great. But when you open the list of user names the are almost exclusively deleted vandal only accounts or offensive ones like User:(2) Heil Hitler, motherfucker!. While I can see where directing school children to a list of user names that have been taken could be helpful could we find a way to provide the list of active accounts? {{Schoolblock}} is used on school IP's that have been blocked for vandalism, directing to a list user names created mostly to vandalize Wikipedia may not be the best choice. Jeepday (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's take this to Template talk:Schoolblock. Mangojuice^talk 16:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Check this out

I recently found this username: User:و. I think it's awesome! Are such usernames allowed? If yes, I may want to change my username.Bless sins (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Technically, yes. However, please don't change your username to something like that. Non-latin characters are allowed, but choosing a username like that because you think it's awesome to have a one-symbol username with a symbol most users can't understand violates the spirit of this policy -- that would be intentionally confusing. Mangojuice^talk 05:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Offensive" vs. "disruptive"

Based on a question by AzaToth on WT:UAA, I'd like to propose that we change the label "offensive usernames" to "disruptive usernames" while leaving the description the same -- that is, it would now say "Disruptive usernames make harmonious editing difficult or impossible."

This won't really change the policy, because it's intended to mean the same thing, but if the current policy is (finally) going to go into TWINKLE it will help to have clear labels for things. I think "disruptive" would be a better description because:

• It gives us a clear category for attack usernames such as "Jimmyblowsgoats", which should clearly be blocked, but the word "offensive" is a bit of a stretch.
• Losing the word "offensive" would help clarify that we're not just here to censor bad words. When such a usernames are a problem, it's not because they include dirty words, it's because they're meant to be disruptive. Then, we can refrain from blocking, say, everyone who harmlessly self-identifies as a "bitch".

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's the best solution. I agree that all disruptive usernames are offensive and also make harmonious editing impossible. However I don't think that all offensive usernames that make harmonious editing difficult or impossible are names everyone would feel comfortable applying the label 'disruptive' to. I would rather just put "disruptive" back as one of the ways in which a username can be inappropriate. (Which we should probably do anyway, after Gurch changed the order of that section so that the types of blocks are discussed after one of the types is discussed in detail.) I would favor "Disruptive usernames include outright trolling or personal attacks" or something like that. Mangojuice^talk 22:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think all disruptive usernames are offensive, though it could depends on the definition of offensive. A username that is similar that of an banned vandal is disruptive, but it's not really offensive. (also, I did include disruptive in TW) _→AzaToth 22:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'm okay with that change. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm excited about TWINKLE actually matching the username policy for once, so I went ahead and made the change. We can of course continue to discuss the exact wording. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it did match the policy! _→AzaToth 03:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello. How about cases when users choose names of notable living people (actors, politicians ...) ? Is it permitted ? - Darwinek (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically, it's not allowed. You can only use real name of a living famous person if it's actually your real name. See WP:U#Real names. Mangojuice^talk 17:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Then what should I do with one user, who uses a name of a famous Czech actor as his username ? - Darwinek (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't do anything unless the person is very high profile. If the actor is very famous, but his/her name isn't especially rare, tell the user they need to make it clear they are not the famous person, say, on their user page. If the actor is very famous and the name is unlikely to belong to anyone else, I'd be willing to block as a likely impersonation. Mangojuice^talk 19:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the case of Bolek Polívka, who is a well-known Czech actor - IMDb, ČSFD. His surname isn't common in the Czech Republic. He is impersonated by User:Bolekpolivka, who was blocked in the past for sockpuppeting - [1]. What do you recommend ? - Darwinek (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I will talk to him. Mangojuice^talk 02:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This becomes a judgment call. You could google real life usernames all you want and nearly always come up with several high profile hits - but, to be fair, there are probably tons of Dave Jones', or Robin Cooks (the latter is an author). It really all depends on the obscurity of the name, and the degree of popularity. I'd say that a user who chooses Steve Forbes or Dick Cheney are blatant violations. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Length

The block template reads: "This account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long or confusing, ..." Where in the policy does it speak on length? Because I don't see it. And confusing just got removed from the policy, though I don't agree with the change. Lara❤Love 14:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The reference to lengthy usernames got removed in this edit. The template should be updated accordingly, I guess. --Conti|✉ 15:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated it. Mangojuice^talk 15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I didn't realise that templates had been changed when I reverted back - I'd should really have taken care of them, but I see Mangojuice has taken care of it. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So character length is no longer limited as long as the name makes sense? Lara❤Love 15:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

True, although I believe there is a hard limit in the software (not sure how many characters) so it doesn't get silly. The problem isn't with length of names - if they're easily recognisable there shouldn't be an issue. The problem comes when usernames are confusing and you don't really know who you're editing with. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you know who you're editing with? You state this like it's some obvious problem that needs to be avoided, but I don't see it.

Isn't "that guy whose name is in Arabic" or "that guy with a lot of g's" going to be a distinguishing feature in most cases, and if you don't know how to spell their name you can click on it like you would for anyone else? It seems this would only be a problem in cases (like your contrived example above) where you encounter two different people whose names are confusing in the same way, by coincidence (because if there's sockpuppetry or impersonation going on, it's a totally different issue). I don't think this has ever happened to anyone, and if it did it's still not such a serious problem that someone should be blocked.

The closest example I can think of to your objection actually happening is: for a long time I didn't know there was a difference between Essjay and Sj. I don't think I ever encountered them in the same place. If I had, I would have been briefly confused, but then I would have figured it out. All in all, an extremely minor problem that nobody needs to get blocked for.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Time to abandon "confusing" as a criterion?

Here's a discussion we put off for later when revising the username policy. It's later now.

Why do we block usernames for being "confusing"? Why, for example, do we waste the time of the good faith User:Askdnapn39nfkjfen (who has even posted an explanation of what his name means) instead of welcoming him to Wikipedia?

The reason I generally hear is that someone could impersonate someone with a confusing username by creating a similar name. But that's ass-backwards. When someone is being impersonated, you block the impersonator, not the impersonatee! Any name can be impersonated, and there's no point in blocking people to protect them from that.

Furthermore, by meta-policy we have to allow non-English (and, indeed, non-Latin-alphabet) names such as User:المستهلك. English speakers, of course, can't really tell that name apart from User:المستهك, so I think this just helps to show the irrelevance of that argument.

This part of the policy has resulted in some of the more egregiously bad username blocks, like User:Ggggggggggggggg12, and it doesn't seem to have much benefit except that sometimes people use it to preemptively block vandals. (And I don't think that's even a good thing: what if Askdnapn39nfkjfen had been "preemptively blocked" for the vandalism he never did?) So what are the arguments for keeping this in the policy?

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think 'confusing usernames' should be removed or clarified. Many of the concerns about usernames that are confusing also fall under misleading. Impersonators can be stopped by the antispoof extension, and that is more misleading than confusing. References to Wikipedia can also fall under misleading usernames. And while the meaning behind a seemingly random username may be confusing, the policy states that it must be easy to identify the username. I don't see any problem with identifying the user amongst a list of other users. I may not be able to remember it, or spell it, but I don't think that should be the criteria for usernames. -- pb30<talk> 17:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup. It can't get much more confusing than names like User:المستهلك which we are going to have to allow because of unified login. Still, I would think it's legit to block someone who deliberately made their username confusing in order to avoid scrutiny. But that basically never happens. Mangojuice^talk 18:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't agree with this, if we start allowing apparently random strings of characters then we open up the potential for a lot of users, with very confusing usernames that although are individually very different, are very hard to tell apart collectively. I'll give you some examples;

• agkykyohdk
• agkhkjonko
• adktockhkb
• adgktmwenn
• adngtuvuzs
• akftmcktmk
• aruvjgjvng
• adktiwchrm
• advujnvjhm
• acgfidjtjv
• avcufjvbjg
• artvhfcdhh

All these usernames are very different, they couldn't be considered similar to one another, but they are indeed confusing becuase you can not easily recognise one from another. Confusion is inevitable here. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Confusion is just not ever that big of a deal, though. A lot of people use signatures that make it look like their username is something else. For instance, User:AGK signs as "Anthony" -- clearly that must be his name, but that's confusing. Username changes are another thing. I tried to compile some data about who participates in RFAs and found that it was just too much of a pain because so many people didn't have a signature that matched their username, and they changed signatures over time, and sometimes changed username. This practice actually interfered with my ability to do something I think would have been valuable, and this practice actually annoys me. But editors matter, and I would rather make valued contributors feel comfortable and accepted than have a less confusing Wikipedia. I think this kind of confusion is just inherent in the system, we all have to deal with it, and so we shouldn't make a big deal out of it, especially when it's done in good faith by a contributor we value. Mangojuice^talk 19:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ryan, just wondering how is it any different to allowing usernames that are probably confusingly similar to many editors here such as:

• User:المستهلك
• User:للمستهلل
• User:للمستهلك
  

(and longer ones)
- Neparis (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I don't know if the example I gave has real Arabic names; it's probably not a good example. What I meant is that confusing but legitimate usernames can exist which may not be resolvable by asking people to change usernames. There are many Arabic real names which may appear confusingly very similar to people not familiar with Arabic, and Arabic people are as entitled as anybody to edit under their real names if they want to, so it would be wrong to ask an Arabic person to change a username which is a real name simply because it looks confusing to people who don't read Arabic. I can foresee a long list of Arabic usernames, which is equally confusing in its own way as the list of usernames posted by Ryan. - Neparis (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Another response to Ryan: Why would you ever encounter a set of names like that and have to distinguish them all? Would all those editors be editing in the same places? (I, for one, would suspect sock puppetry, but that's another issue.) If you encountered an improbable situation like that, you might start by telling them "Look, I have trouble following your discussion because your name looks a lot like these five other people in the discussion. I'm not sure why you did that, but could I encourage you to change your name to make this discussion easier?" Probably a few of them would, and the problem would be solved without having to block anyone. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like consensus. Let's remove it from the policy and see if the Wiki comes crashing down in a mass of confusion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it really just a matter of whether or not the individual could be identified easily, or referred to easily without copy and pasting. The confusion lies in the intuitive or cognitive recognition of the user name for expedience sake. A user name like fdlsjfdlsafdlsafjl should never be allowed to edit, despite WP:AGF - it's not that the user is presumed to exploit, disrupt, or vandalize wikipedia, it's that the user could easily come up with another suitable username while avoiding the eyesore. Wisdom89 (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a clear line between ok and "confusing" usernames that wouldn't conflict with meta policy on allowing non-English and non-Latin alphabet usernames? Where is the cut-off point? f? fd? fdl? fdls? fdlsjfd? 8 or more Latin characters? Lack of vowels? Somebody's initials? Mixtures of Latin and non-Latin alphabets? How would you know at a glance that any of the Arabic usernames given above are not in fact random Arabic strings no different in kind from fdlsjfdlsafdlsafjl? - Neparis (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen people with names as short as 6 characters usernameblocked. It doesn't appear that there is any one particular threshold for randomness versus non-randomness.--VectorPotential^Talk 14:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is perhaps the only place in Wikipedia policy where mildly annoying one admin leads directly to a block. I don't think the community at large would support your suggested criterion that you can block someone for being an "eyesore". In fact, that's a pretty straightforward example of biting the newbies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised this change was made. Random strings of letters make it more difficult to recognize or remember an editor to contact them later without finding their printed name. And shouldn't these sort of changes be brought up on AN? Lara❤Love 14:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised the change was made, but there probably should have been a post to WP:VPP first. Mangojuice^talk 15:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

and I've reverted it back. We've discussed it many times before, so I don't agree that a there should be a change in policy less than 48 hours after it was suggested, when many times before there has been no consensus to do that. I would agree that a VPP posting should have been made. The problem here doesn't seem to be the policy - it should only be used to block usernames that are random making them confusing. A 6 character username should never be random enough to warrent a block. When blocking random usernames, I always look for 12 characters (at least) before even considering a block. I fear the problems here are associated with wrong interpretations of this policy by some admins who believe 5/6 character usernames could be random enough for a block. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Random or seemingly random? If a user can explain their name is it still against policy? And if there are problems with people misinterpreting policy, isn't that (at least in part) a problem with the policy being too vague? -- pb30<talk> 17:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lara: yes, some names are difficult to identify. Especially if they're in Arabic, for example. Why is this an argument to block them? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I now regularly patrol the User Creation Log and report username violations, I can think of no good reason why an editor with good intent would want a long random string of letters and numbers for their name. New users who choose such names are almost invariably vandalism only accounts, they are no loss to Wikipedia. Polly (Parrot) 19:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polly (talk • contribs)

• • You want to block editors before they do anything wrong? Dan Beale-Cocks 20:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's done regularly when a username is a blatant violation of WP:UAA, so yes, if by "doing wrong" you mean as far as edits are concerned. As far as confusing usernames, in my experience (as another indicated) of patrolling I have found usernames that display random unnecessarily long strings of characters have so sort of ill intent - or it's a sign of carelessness. Most of the time the username doesn't even become active beyond registration. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, several things wrong here.

• UAA isn't a policy, it's a board for enforcing the policy at WP:U. We're talking here about making "confusing" names not be violations of WP:U anymore. "We block them because it's a violation, so we should keep it as a violation so we can block them" is a circular argument.
• You've encountered vandals with random-looking usernames, so therefore everyone with a random-looking username is a vandal? Do I follow your logic?
• "Carelessness" is hardly a good reason to block newbies.
• Since most of the names don't become active, in the majority of cases you get what you want (the newbie never edits) anyway.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to be told that WP:U is a policy - I am aware of that. Why bother bringing this up, it was obviously just semantics. Second of all, I was merely offering an observation (from my own experience) of the particular behavior such users have a TENDENCY to display. I wasn't declaring an immutable form of Wisdom89 "logic", nor did I make a sweeping assumption that all such usernames are vandals. I know what the discussion is about, rspeer / ɹəədsɹ . Obviously my stance is that "confusing usernames" (while not perfect) is a criteria easily discernible. I find it insufferably difficult to identify users when their names resemble the bashing of the keyboard. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I bring it up because there was a time when WP:UAA was the de facto policy, while WP:U sat ignored. Not that this was a good thing at all. This is when people on UAA established the tradition of blocking usernames for being similar to certain examples, encouraged by TWINKLE, while the username policy said explicitly not to do that. Sometimes I pointed out the policy to people, and they told me I didn't know anything about username blocks and the policy was wrong. So I am saying this to point out the crucial fact that now WP:U, the policy, comes first, in case you were saying otherwise.

Also, the large number of incorrect blocks we've seen for "confusingness", and the even larger number of people who choose that option in TWINKLE as a form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, show that this criterion is far from "easily discernable". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need random as a criterion anymore, primarily because from what I've seen editors who intend to edit productively in good faith will pick a username that means something, even if only to them. Thus a user with a completely random username is probably a vandal, a sockpuppet, someone who will never edit, or someone who is unlikely to get too involved in areas where ease of identification is important. So they'll get blocked due to actions warranting such, or it won't matter due to lack of activity, or they'll get frustrated when no one can remember their name and change it themselves. I can't imagine a large number of incidents resulting from the removal of this rule. Blocking them because users with random usernames are commonly vandals is not in keeping with the intent of this policy and is a blatant violation of WP:AGF.--Dycedarg ж 07:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I find random strings of names almost impossible to use to identify a person, which is the whole point of usernames. I find names with non-latin script easy to use to identify a person. I think we have the "confusing" criteria for a reason.

The anti-spoof system Wikipedia uses can not catch everything, so we will also need to keep enforcing that with our brain matter. Names like User:hvnadfjkl are often throw away accounts anyways to shield their IP from blocks longer than 24 hours.

I would also like to point out, yet again, that a username block is not a user block, a user who loses their username can change it or create a new account, we are not kicking them out. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty lenient when it comes to confusing usernames, examples of what I have reported as confusing are User:Lkjaslksdjaslkdjasskljdlaskjd and User:Blahblahblah1323483478748748787474777474. Surely there is no good reason for such ridiculously random names. AGF is all very well, but it has its limits. Polly (Parrot) 19:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't find those names confusing. I can easily identify them from each other, and every other name on this page. Sure they are unnecessarily long, but maybe length is the real issue. I couldn't remember the names, but I don't think I should be forced to. I can't remember Ryan's full username. And if someone happens to get by the antispoof protection and registers a similar name, then the misleading criteria may apply, or it may be a case of sock puppets. I've got nothing against issuing a uw-username, or inviting them to change the name, but blocking within minutes before any edits seems a bit much, and a bit too WP:BITE-ish. -- pb30<talk> 20:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but uw-username is rather wishy-washy in tone, maybe it needs beefing up a bit. Still, as has already been mentioned most of these type of usernames end up never editing, so it's not that vital either way. Though if an act of vandalism has occurred from this type of username then I think they should get a swift block. AGF shouldn't trump common sense, by all means bark first, but if ignored a swift BITE is called for. Polly (Parrot) 00:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Because a template is too wishy-washy they should be blocked on sight? -- pb30<talk> 04:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree that we need to make uw-username meaner, your last suggestion, Polly, is quite reasonable, and I'm pretty sure it would be the case if we reformed this part of the username policy. There is no problem in blocking the users with nonsense names who are vandals. The combination of the username and the vandalism would be enough evidence of a vandalism-only account to swiftly place a block for vandalism.

Somehow I think a lot of the opposition misses this fact: the username policy isn't the only way to block people. The kind of people you're worried about would typically get about one or two edits before they got blocked. You prefer zero? Well, I must say I prefer one. It's a bad idea to block people for what they haven't done yet. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Introducing a term: The المستهلك Test

Okay, so we have some people joining the discussion who haven't participated in previous discussion of confusing usernames, and we'll have a lot more if we follow Ryan's suggestion to open this up to the Village Pump. (I'm concerned that this will just bury the issue with "too many cooks". We haven't needed the Village Pump to make the other changes that Ryan agreed with.)

To stop the same self-defeating arguments coming back, I want to propose The المستهلك Test, which in a nutshell is:

If you have an argument for blocking certain kinds of usernames which is also an argument for blocking المستهلك, it should not be considered.

The fact that this name is in the Arabic character set isn't the key point, it's just a good example. We've had a name in native Nicaraguan in the Latin alphabet blocked for being "confusing" before, for example.

The important thing is that we cannot block users for what language their username is in -- even if it's a language the admins around don't know. To do so would not only be xenophobic, it would be against Meta's goal of having people use the same identity across all wikis.

Here's an application of the المستهلك test. Some argue that we should block names if we don't know how to type them into the "Go" box. Almost nobody on en:wp knows how to type المستهلك into the "Go" box. Therefore, it's not a good reason to block people.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been arguments before about the non-latin alphabet thing. Why not compare those arguments to arguments to disallow IP addresses as usernames? Since we obviously can't do *that*... Mangojuice^talk 19:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A very good point. What kind of identifier is 79.14.19.150? Am I supposed to be able to tell that apart from 79.19.14.150? It's just a bunch of random numbers! I'm going to be seriously inconvenienced if I ever have to remember one of those and type it into the Go box, and you wouldn't want to see me when I'm inconvenienced. Clearly we should block the lot of these malicious scrutiny-evading "anonymous" users. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

المستهلك does not look random or confusing to me. It is just a different alphabet. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

But I've been trying to say all along - 9 numbers for an IP isn't that random, and it's not really within the spirit of the policy to block these usernames. What the policy is trying to stop is username like asdfgureucujrhjeoskf - completely random, but confusing because of the length as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't find asdfgureucujrhjeoskf confusing. In fact, I find it quite easy to remember compared to المستهلك - Neparis (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think most people find it very confusing to be honest. The thing with non latin usernames is that we allow them because m:SUL is probably going to come at some point, and at this time, we will have to allow non latin usernames to edit here. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't just give usernames a free pass if they're in another character set and claim that fixes things. There are languages out there, with Wikipedias in them, that use the Latin alphabet in a way that would be confusing to English speakers. But then, I know where you stand on this issue, because you were in favor of blocking Yaptitasbamasrakaaslatakanka.

I think the right way to think of this is not "oh grumble, we're going to have unified usernames so we're going to have to let these people and their horrible usernames in". It's to think of Wikipedia's goal of letting the entire world participate. Blocking someone because of what their name looks like is shameful. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if this has been brought up before

What was the consensus regarding the specific breakdown criteria for the username policy? I noticed a change a few weeks ago regarding the use of Twinkle, where now the specifications are quite generic. Was there an overwhelming consensus that this caused too much confusion? I ask only because I felt they were a benefit and gave administrators and users more latitude with respect to interpretation of the policy - although it seems that the policy was rewritten. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's actually been a long time since this was changed in the policy, with increasing levels of clarity. Basically, the problem was knee-jerk reports of names that arguably were similar to one of the examples but which did not make sense to block, e.g. User:Punk bitch, User:GM Chrysler, et cetera. For a long time the policy had the examples with a caveat to make sure one of the general reasons applies, then for a while, the policy explicitly said the examples are not reasons in themselves, and finally they had to be removed. Mangojuice^talk 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that the examples are at WP:UN/E for reference -- pb30<talk> 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I recognize all of these. Ok, so these examples, or breakdowns are no longer policy, but does that mean if one explains a filed report utilizing for example "username makes a potentially inflammatory statement", or "username states makes a violent threat" they will be dismissed or taken with a fresh grain of salt? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In the first case, "potentially inflammatory", I'd want it to be more on the side of "actually inflammatory". There are too many Wikipedians who will state that they are offended by some rather benign things if they can use it to get a name they don't like blocked. For example, some have been very successful at blocking names connected with religions that aren't their own (or with atheism). The username policy is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and should not provide a tool for people to fight an ideological turf war.

Violent threats are definitely offensive and disruptive, and you don't need a list to tell you that. The problem with the examples being treated as policy is that people actually wanted to block names like "Kicking333" because kicking is violent! Do you see how silly and out-of-control that gets? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh you definitely have my agreement there. And I unquestionably see your point regarding WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I suppose if the username is blatantly denigrating a religion or group, there is no question. There is simply no call for reporting usernames which merely contain religious or political allusions (e.g jesus, atheist, satan, darkGod, Bushismyhero etc..etc..). Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Other reasons to block confusing usernames

Since some here want to continue blocking confusing usernames, I want to know what exactly are the arguments for it. We've covered a few that I don't find very compelling:

• They might vandalize.
  • Response: This is true of many new users on Wikipedia, and yet we block vandals after they vandalize. Blocking before assumes bad faith and often leads to erroneous blocks.
• It's hard to know who you're talking to.
  • Response: Same goes for anonymous users. And, in fact, nearly everyone you meet on the Internet.
• They could be confused with other similar names. Thus, the name is not serving its purpose of identifying an individual.
  • Response: It is very unlikely for a user with a confusing name, and another user with a name that's confusing in the same way, to show up coincidentally in the same place. In the rare case that this happens, talk it out. If it's malicious impersonation, block the impersonator.
  • Another response: IP addresses can be easily confused with other IP addresses, but we don't block them.
• They're hard to type if you don't have a link to their user page.
  • WP's interface helpfully provides links to their username in all relevant situations. Also, we don't block المستهلك.
• Blocks are a polite way to ask someone to change their name.
  • No, they're not. Blocks are a way to say "fuck off", particularly to newbies who are unfamiliar with the gritty details of Wikipedia. A polite way to ask someone to change their name is to ask, politely, on their talk page.
    • The words "fuck off" are not in {{unb}}, but the words "You are encouraged to create a new account" are. _(1 == 2)^Until
      • The words You have been blocked are in bold above it in the block interface text. Anyway, there are far more straightforward ways to be polite. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it just the arguments above that are so important that we need to keep this bitey piece of policy around, or are there other arguments that should be added to the list? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It circumvents the primary purpose of a username which is to identify an individual. While any unique string of characters is enough for the Wikipedia software to follow, human brains memorize things by finding patterns, and lacking that pattern have a difficult time making use of such an identifying string.

This is not biting, just saying it is does not make it so. We don't say "HEY YOU WITH THE NAME, FUCK OFF!". We says "This is our policy, if you want to work here you need to meet it". We have an exceedingly polite message that explains this and gives several options. This is no more biting than asking a user to give citations for negative information about a living person.

Insisting someone follow policy is not biting. So lets ask ourselves if this is good or bad policy without claims of biting people. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying it's not biting make it so either. Insisting someone follow policy in a too-strict manner is absolutely biting: would we block users over newbie mistakes regarding fair use? Or not citing their sources? No, we give them warnings and try to show them how things work here. Should I start pointing out the potentially valuable contributors who have seemingly been driven away over username blocks? People take blocking very personally. Mangojuice^talk 18:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded the third bullet point to deal with Until's objection. The responses still apply. People deal with IP addresses, which do a horrible job of referring to individuals -- at least usernames stay the same.

Meanwhile, I'm baffled at the idea that not blocking requires using the phrase "HEY YOU WITH THE NAME, FUCK OFF", while blocking is "exceedingly polite". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't taken into account the fact that 9 charcters does not make a username confusing. This is in policy to stop long, random usernames from editing. Not short ones. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should we stop long, random usernames from editing? How does the use of such usernames damage Wikipedia, and how does that damage compare to the potential damage of biting them? Mangojuice^talk 19:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How exactly would you go about easily identifying, carrying on a conversation with, or referencing another user with the name "Ieye?luvemomMaljflgdfcldhbsfjowow929340402430"? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd call him "Ieye..." if I needed to mention him to another user, I would converse with him on his talk page like anyone else (and the conversation would probably include a suggestion to change name), and considering that name sticks out like a sore thumb, I don't think there would be a problem in "identifying". Are these answers unintuitive? Do your questions somehow apply to Ieye... more than they do to المستهلك? Also, Mango asked you what you thought was the damage to Wikipedia, which you haven't answered. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose they honestly do not damage Wikipedia per se. The only thing I can think of is they contaminate the degree of professionalism or sophistication generally associated with an encyclopedia. Although, that would hold true for usernames like "Sweetieheart2002luvya", so that argument doesn't exactly hold much water. Believe it or not, I'm starting to see why this whole "confusing username" thing isn't so black and white. However, with regards to المستهلك , that's a different story. I can't get behind allowing a user to pick a handle which is not legible. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a multi-lingual project. The name isn't illegible, it's just in Arabic. Mangojuice^talk 03:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In the sense that user's can speak multiple languages, yes of course. However, this is the English version of Wikipedia. You can transwikify articles, why not usernames? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Transwikifying" users, as if they accidentally signed up at the wrong project, would be totally disrespectful. Making it against the rules to use non-English names or signatures would be simply xenophobic, as if users who aren't primarily English speakers aren't welcome here. But this is all moot anyway, because unified login is coming and will de facto mean that all foreign users get to use their usernames on Wikipedia. Mangojuice^talk 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it would be "xenophobic", but yes it could definitely be construed as disrespectful. I hope you didn't take my comment as such. Just trying to get a handle on the current views. Thanks for the provided link. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are already users around who people don't typically refer to by their whole name. Like User:Dihydrogen Monoxide is usually referred to as DHMO or water or something like that. If editors find a username unwieldy they come up with a nickname or abbreviation. It doesn't impede anything at all. It's a minor inconvenience to find said editors page if you want to talk to them later, but I really can't see enough people wanting a username that long and random to cause the combined inconvenience to stack until all of Wikipedia grinds to a halt.--Dycedarg ж 10:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but think my comment was misinterpreted. We don't block users for making a good faith mistake on their username, we block their username and do it in a very polite way. Not blocking them would be more polite, but so would not deleting their article about the family cat. I see it being repeated over and over that we are punishing these people somehow, when all we are doing is enforcing a name change. This is a collaborative environment and people need to think about others working with them when they pick a name. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The distinction of blocking the name versus blocking the user is not clear to new users, and the way the blocks are done doesn't entirely make it so. I don't think blocks should be made without discussion in any but the most egregious cases, and I thought that's what the policy was. How about this question — is there such a thing as an egregiously confusing username? SamBC(talk) 18:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly: usernames may be confusing but never egregiously so. I think that anyone who is serious about editing here should not use a confusing username but that should be resolved very gently, by letting them come around to the same conclusion themselves, perhaps with a little urging, and they should not be forced to change from a username they have a good reason to want to keep. Mangojuice^talk 18:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then "confusing" should not be a cause for blocking a user without discussion. I would support amending the policy to reflect that. SamBC(talk) 19:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding point 3, IPs are not meant to identify an individual like a username does, it can be a different person in 5 minutes and you could never tell. IPs are not identifiers of persons. I also disagree that different random strings are easy to distinguish. Human brains use patterns to form memories, and lacking these pattern have trouble. Many random names are made by keyboard smacks, which do in fact end up rather similar from person to person ie "jfsdaklfjasdk" vs "jfasdklfjaskl". And you cannot count on the anti-spoofing software to stop this as it is only effective sometimes. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In what kind of situation would this harm Wikipedia? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, communication is pretty important for collaborative editing. I can imagine a situation where "jfsdaklfjasdk" is associated with the actions of "jfasdklfjaskl", leading to some pretty significant misunderstandings. We use usernames to identify the individual, if the name does not do that then there is a problem.

Saying that a username block is telling a user to "fuck off" is frankly horse-shit. The block message is very polite and very clear that they can be renamed or create a new account. Unless the person is unable to read, then they should understand this. We can argue the merits of the rule, but please don't say that enforcing the rules is an offense to new users, because it is not. No more than any other part of the policy. A username block is not a behavioral issue, nor is it a punishment. If you think that is unclear then edit {{unb}}, but I think it explains things very well.

I also find the comparison to non-latin names to be a red herring, there is a pattern that can be remembered. These non-latin scripts still follow simple rules that lay out names into a recognizable pattern, just like every human language. I don't think anyone is arguing for the blocking of foreign looking names, so bringing that up really misrepresents the position that apparently random names should be blocked. Nobody is saying foreign == random. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is confusing, not random. To me a non-latin name is much more confusing than lakjsdflkajs. I can barely read and don't know how to type non-latin names. I couldn't remember the username, or refer to them on a talk page. Any pattern that may exist is not apparent to me. -- pb30<talk> 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As it is sooo easy to get a new user name, I do not see the problem with current softblock+template and ask the user to get a new username, in particular if the account with the confusing name has a only a few edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of us see this as biting the newbies. Yes, they can work around the issue, but it's very discouraging and unfriendly. Mangojuice^talk 17:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You claim that Wikipedians involved with this process can tell foreign from random. Remember that Yaptitasba... was blocked for being "confusing", which in effect blocked him for being "Nicaraguan", so your policy doesn't exactly have a good track record. If you think that {{unb}} is the only thing that appears on a user's screen when they're username blocked, you need to check again, and even changing all the block message to accomodate username blocks still wouldn't make it polite. Polite is "please change your name". "You must change your name now and I've made sure you can't edit until you do" is not polite.

Your argument about confusing names with each other fails the المستهلك test, and hypothesizes one of those improbable situations where two people with names that are confusing in the same way appear in the same place. Instead of blocking people for inconveniencing you, you can go to the tiny bit more effort to distinguish two names, which almost certainly will not be as similar as in your example (AntiSpoof would make sure of that). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For those who want to keep this kind of block around as a "polite" way to ask people to change their names, I'll point out that you're in a small minority who thinks blocks can be "polite". But I'll propose an alternate method that can get you the result you want: asking them politely. If they are in fact reasonable users, they will change their names, or (like Askdna...) they will at least provide an explanation of what their name means, which might help you distinguish it from other names in the future. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - An indefinite block because of a "confusing" username is, in fact, impolite and would most likely be perceived as a slight. Now you ran the risk of frustrating a potentially valued user, not to mention turning them away from Wikipedia for good. If the user has good intentions, then a message on the talk regarding the username would be more appropriate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Scenario 1: Someone registers as laskjfalksjfkasjlak, gets reported to UAA, and blocked indef within minutes.

Scenario 2: Someone registers, adds a vulgar comment to an article, gets a polite warning to stop.

Why are vandals treated better than those who picked a less than ideal username? -- pb30<talk> 19:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This all matches what I just said above &mdash temporarily putting aside the issue of whether a block can ever be polite, we only block usernames without discussion that are truly egregious (supposedly), and a name can't really be egregiously confusing, so "confusing" usernames shouldn't be subject to blocking without discussion. SamBC(talk) 19:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What about "confusing" usernames that match high profile luminaries and political heads? "Tony Blair", "Geddy Lee" "Bruce Springsteen" etc..etc.. Such examples fall under this category (i.e misleading), but surely this can't be tolerated. Has it ever been proposed to just nix the "confusing" term and just leave "misleading", but have it also include deliberate misrepresentation regarding the individual (not authority figures, wikipedia admins or collectives), or just picking a name that matches your favorite musician? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has said anything about the prohibition against misleading usernames, as it is mentioned in a different bullet point under the inappropriate username heading and is not particularly controversial. It's also mentioned under the real names heading.--Dycedarg ж 05:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Those aren't confusing usernames, they're misleading usernames, which is a separate bullet point and not the subject of this discussion... SamBC(talk) 10:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting goals, and a proposal to disentangle them

(edited to turn this section from random musings into a proposal -- rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

Okay. It seems like those who support "confusing username" blocks have two contradictory reasons to block them now:

1. They're clearly up to no good. Therefore, we need to block them to prevent the risk that they might vandalize.
2. We might get confused by things like referring to them or distinguishing them from other people. Therefore, we need to block them as a "polite" way of telling them to change their name. This block doesn't hurt at all. They'll come back.

I don't think anyone's advocating hard-blocking usernames just for being confusing, so if you take these two reasons together, what we're doing with "confusing username" blocks is gently blocking likely vandals so they can easily come back and vandalize under a less conspicuous username. That's not useful.

I understand both arguments, I just don't think they're good arguments for username blocks. Username blocks aren't the right tool for this job, because they conflate both of these situations into one incoherent one. However, we can split them into two cases that we handle reasonably. And my hope is this will handle the concerns of those who don't want to see "confusing usernames" removed from the policy -- they may be concerned about the effects of simply removing it, but we can replace it with something appropriate.

So the proposal is:

• We remove "confusing username" as a criterion for immediate blocking.
• We create a section of WP:U about confusing usernames that references two things:
  1. A pointer to the vandalism policy, saying that unnecessarily confusing usernames can be used as evidence of a vandalism-only account, just not the sole evidence. If you see someone with a gibberish username and they start out by vandalizing, you can hard-block them (or put them on WP:AIV to be hardblocked).
  2. A template that can be used to politely request that people change their username, not because it explicitly violates a policy, but because it makes it hard to work with people. {{uw-username}} isn't quite it. I think there will not be many cases where a user would ignore the request, not explain themselves, and yet keep editing productively anyway. If that happens, there's some sort of misunderstanding. Worst case, bring it to RFC/N.

The bad-faith users still get blocked, and we do our part to discourage sucky usernames. Is this a satisfying proposal? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this captures the point I was trying to make above. Some of your representation of the arguments for blocking confusing names are a little hyperbolic, as it were, but I think we all understand what you mean. Yes, I think we should do that. SamBC(talk) 10:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Where are "vandalism-only accounts" defined?

Okay, this might be a silly question, but where is the term "vandalism-only accounts" defined in policy? I've seen vandalism patrollers give out hardblocks for vandalism-only accounts, but I can't find anything in policy about them. In fact, I can't find anything in WP:VAND that lets you block without some kind of warning. (Which, as an aside, shows how out of proportion username blocks are. I've just given a user a routine warning because he's editing a hockey player's bio to say things like he "ate a bucket of shit". If the words "bucket of shit" appeared in his username, without even libeling any particular person, he'd probably be blocked already.)

I know that this term has to exist somewhere, and I'd like to be able to refer to it for the proposal I've outlined above, but the vandalism policy isn't exactly my area. Does anyone know? Should I go ask on WT:VAND? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So far it looks like it's defined nowhere. This could explain why people want this username policy to be so broad that they can block vandals with it as well. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what connection you're making here with VOAs Rspeer, but there is no definition of vandalism-only accounts - they fall under the standard definition of vandalism. Vandalism-only accounts are in almost all cases warned, except where it is obvious that they have seen all the warnings before. Anyone with "bucket of shit" as a term of abuse in their username will have their username blocked, quite rightly, before they can edit. And if you could determine with certainty that their next edit was to call someone a bucket of shit, you would block them too. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I distracted you with "bucket of shit"; that was a one-off anecdote in parentheses, not my main point. This issue mostly relates to the "confusing username" issue.

Despite many people saying that confusing username blocks are archaic and unnecessary, some people want to keep insta-blocking them under the username policy. So I wanted to find something that would satisfy their objections to removing "confusing usernames" as a reason to block users. I thought what would help would be a pointer to how you block them for vandalism when they turn out to be vandals, using their confusing username as evidence. There's a whole lot of discussion about this above.

Because "vandalism-only accounts" aren't defined in policy, the problem becomes much clearer. If you see someone with a confusing username who's vandalizing, you can't immediately hardblock them for vandalism according to the policy -- if I understand you correctly, no matter how obvious it is, you'd have to warn them first. But if you want to block them and get it over with, you can block them under the username policy. Despite that their username wasn't the problem. It's only a softblock, which strikes me as a rather stopgap measure against vandalism, but I understand the appeal of instant gratification.

However, this requires that the username policy allows blocking of usernames just because they sound like vandal usernames, and that in particular gets us the "confusing usernames" rule. And because people think of it as a username issue instead of a vandalism issue, non-vandal newbies with confusing usernames get blocked too. This is what I'm trying to fix, by having the vandalism policy (not the username policy) deal with the vandals, but it seems I've encountered quite a gray area in that policy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, someone at WT:VAND pointed me to the right text. It's not such a gray area after all. From WP:BP:

Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity, and accounts whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sock-puppetry, obvious vandalism, personal attack, and so on) may not require further warning.

That's what I was looking for. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, before I go forward with including something like this in the proposal, is this actually what we want to do? Do we really want to suggest blocking for vandalism without a warning in the username policy, when the vandalism policy doesn't do that? We could instead use the username as just a way to escalate the warnings, so that perhaps only one would be required.

So here's my question.

• If my proposal added to the policy that "confusing usernames" could be used as evidence when blocking a user for vandalism without a warning, would you support it?
• If my proposal added to the policy that "confusing usernames" could be used as evidence when blocking a user for vandalism after one warning, would you support it?

The entire reason I'm doing this is to convince people that removing "confusing username" blocks need not interfere with our ability to block vandals, so I'm especially interested in hearing from those who opposed the change, such as Until, Ryan Postlethwaite, and LaraLove.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Zero warnings. Warnings are never necessary, and when the username is viewed as part of the problem, a warning won't even help. In those cases we've really just got to go ahead and block. Mangojuice^talk 04:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed discouragement on symbols of nationality and nationalism

I think these are unhelpful as usernames. While such usernames can be dealt with under 'offensive usernames' (Nationalism 'A' is offensive to nationalism 'B') often thats a bad idea as it may be interpreted as an insult by the other party. Making exceptions are again problematic because they will lead to "nationalism 'A' is fine so why is nationalism 'B' banned?" arguments. So I think a broader restriction on this is needed. We should at the very least discourage such usernames. -- Cat ^chi? 13:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

do you have any examples of usernames that have caused problems? Dan Beale-Cocks 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to avoid specific examples if possible. -- Cat ^chi? 03:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This could require a wording change. I wouldn't want to address natioalism specifically, but we used to have longer wording that included "Offensive or inflammatory" rather than just "offensive"; this is really an example of an inflammatory username, where it may not exactly be right to call it offensive. How about "Offensive or inflammatory usernames make harmonious editing difficult or impossible?" Mangojuice^talk 19:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Offensive or inflammatory usernames that make harmonious editing difficult" is fine, but doesn't it lead to many reports from people saying "I don't find this name a problem, but someone might"? Dan Beale-Cocks 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"I don't find this offensive, but someone might." Yeah, same problem we already have. I think the "make harmonious editing difficult or impossible" wording is sufficient to take care of borderliny ones. Mangojuice^talk 23:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll give a non-offensive one for the sake of argument. I bet noone despises the Kiribatian people. Say we have a User:Kiribati nationalist that edits articles related to many ocean islands in the pacific. No problem there, right? But what if a territorial dispute breaks, say with Palau?
The fewer religious, nationalist, political, ethnic and other potentially controversial usernames we get, the better. People should be discouraged from using such usernames. It is important to note that banning such usernames is counterproductive. We want to prevent people from unintentionally causing flamewars, not start flamewars ourselves. -- Cat ^chi? 03:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I said above that I don't like the username policy being used as a tool to fight ideological turf wars. I used religion as an example. Nationalism would be another.

Another way to put it: The only consistent stance we can take is that no nationality is inherently offensive. Otherwise we'd probably end up blocking self-identified Macedonians or Azerbaijanis, but not Americans or Australians. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sure the Iraqis may find 'American' offensive. In fact I know some Mexicans who find it very disturbing that USians call themselves 'American'. After all a Mexican is from the America continent and hence American. The decision to discourage some nationalities while allowing others will lead to problems. So discouraging all equality will be better. Preventing 'turf wars' is the entire point of this proposal. -- Cat ^chi? 03:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I live in a border state, I know a ton of Mexicans, and while I don't doubt that some might feel that way, that's probably an extreme example. I'm with Rspeer here, we shouldn't think that nationalities are inherently offensive. If a user has a problem with the username of another because of nationalism, that's not our problem. There's a point were reasonable accommodation is exceeded. -- Ned Scott 04:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The question should be whether the choice of name makes harmonious editing "difficult or impossible." User:Serbian Joe doesn't cause the problem: the problem is caused by those who take offense at something inoffensive. On the other hand User:Serbian Nationalist can be said to cause a problem and may be placing an undue burden on everyone they edit with. I don't think there's any reason to discourage nationalities broadly, but if in a specific case there's a good reason to think the name is making harmonious editing difficult, it's a good reason to ask the user to change their username. And this is much too specific an issue for it to make sense to address directly in the policy. Mangojuice^talk 04:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats just asking for endless flamewars. Why are Nazi related usernames banned? -- Cat ^chi? 14:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If people don't want to get flamed for suggesting others change their username when the username doesn't cause a big enough problem for it to be blocked, then maybe they should mind their own business. Nazi-related usernames aren't explicitly banned, but it's hard for me to think of any such usernames that are both overtly Nazi-related and yet not offensive enough to cause problems. Mangojuice^talk 16:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Tell me one Nazi related username that is not banned? YOu are somewhat missing the point of this proposal... -- Cat ^chi? 19:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know there are people who are offended by Americans. But I just have a hunch that if we started blocking people for national self-identification, Western countries would get a free pass more often, and that would be unfair.

Anyway, Cat made the right point above. Some nationalist usernames will cause problems, yes. But if we try to ban them, we join the problem. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Discourage, not ban. Exactly. -- Cat ^chi? 14:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

IP Address as Name

Is there a specific policy on using ones IP address? I write anonymously by choice - and fully expect my edits to stand or fall on their own merits. Is my use of IP against the rules? I understand I forego the benefits of an account, but do I then get penalized as well? 19:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You will never be required to register an account. See meta:Foundation issues - this is one rule that will almost certainly never change. However, be aware of the following. (1) It's actually more anonymous to choose a username. Your IP address can be traced to a location by anyone, whereas if you log in you can only be traced like that by a checkuser if there's some reason to suspect abuse. (2) There are other IP contributors who contribute appropriately and are valued community members. But not many. You will do fine, probably, if you stick to a few articles and get involved in discussions with people there, but you'll do less well coming in as an outsider to a debate to offer a fresh opinion, especially if there's a heated debate. People are mistrustful of IPs. (3) Also keep in mind that some IP addresses are static whereas others are dynamic. If you have a dynamic IP address your IP will change every so often, which means your contributions will be scattered over many IP addresses, and it makes it very hard for users to look into your edit history. It's not forbidden, but in some ways it's much like sockpuppetry to use dynamic IPs without logging in. But like I said, you aren't required to register. Mangojuice^talk 08:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed policy improvement

You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person, or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.

Change to:

You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person, or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name. Such blocked user must be notified in a courteous manner and instructed to create a new username.

This proposal is prompted by a new user LeonardoDiCaprio (talk · contribs) who clearly identified that she is a fan, not Mr. DiCaprio. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal B

An administrator has explained her interpretation. This interpretation would read:

You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person, or you make it clear that your real name is the same as the well-known person but that you are a different person are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.

With this new proposal, I favor Proposal B. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point in this. I removed a comma, making it

You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.

The sentence specifically refers to those who share a name with a famous person. If that is unclear to some with that wording, perhaps:

You should not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name. In such cases, you must either show that you are that person or make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until it can be confirmed that the user in question is using their real name.

Lara❤Love 20:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This needs examples, something like:

If your name is Tom Jones or Jenna Bush, you may use that as your username. However, you must make clear on your talk page whether or not you are the famous person known by those names.

This makes clear that it's about people who share names with famous people, and does not permit a fan of Leonardo DiCaprio to use that name. --FOo (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal A is too restrictive, and proposal B is confusingly worded, but LaraLove's wording sounds sensible. I support the change. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ɹəədsɹ . The modified version of Proposal B is very unambiguous, and takes care of the veil that envelopes this aspect of the username policy. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the current text to Lara's version. I think Lara's version gets it wrong in the case that the user actually is the famous person (we should stop here at saying it's okay if they really are that person, and take care of the rest sensitively and carefully in private: it's bad to suggest they "prove it" when it may be totally unclear how to do so), and it also stresses this rare case too much. Mangojuice^talk 05:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see that. Yes, I could do without the "show that" part. I never particularly liked the part that blocks famous people, anyway. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the current wording as well. I don't see the point in changing it. My suggested possible change was just if some consensus had formed that the current wording was too ambiguous. As an aside, the next paragraph explains how to "show that you are the person". Lara❤Love 16:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Current wording works quite well as is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: remove the ban on "promotional usernames"

The ban on promotional usernames is doing more harm than good. Recently, Adznet was blocked and is now undergoing an RFCN because he has a personal website with a domain name that matches his username (something which is only discouraged by this policy). Some time ago, we remember that Bravogolfhotel was blocked, because someone found out that the letters "B G H" in the NATO phonetic alphabet matched the name of a hotel in the Philippines. The "promotional" category is by far the category causing the most reports to UAA these days, often on the flimsiest of grounds. For example, a report on the username "Whiztec" is on UAA right now with the rationale "User create article Whizecargo. Assuming username stands for "Whize Technician" or similar", and people are getting reported for having names that contain portions of a rock band's name, et cetera.

I believe this situation has gone completely overboard. Nowadays, many people have personal websites or blogs with their own domain name, and it comes as no surprise that they also choose their established Internet handle as their Wikipedia username. If these users don't spam Wikipedia with links to their site, the username is no problem at all IMO. In fact, most supporters of the promotional username ban seem to agree that a promotional username is only a problem if the user actually promotes their company by creating articles, adding links, etc. In that case, it's the actual promotion that's a problem, not the fact that their username matches or alludes to the company name. Therefore, we should focus on limiting promotional editing, instead of seeing this from a username perspective, which just causes Twinkle users to Google the user creation logs and reporting anything that seems to resemble a domain name.

I therefore suggest that "promotional" be taken out of WP:U. Instead, a policy prohibiting promotional editing should be added to WP:COI. This policy could of course contain some proviso saying that an editor's username is to be considered as part of a promotional pattern, but all blocks handed out for promotion should be recorded as user conduct blocks, not username blocks. This would also cause less confusion for the users getting blocked. If someone adds biased information about their school whose name is part of their username, it's much more helpful for them to hear that "you've been blocked for adding irrelevant links to Wildforest High School to many articles" instead of "your username Wildforestguy is offensive, disruptive, confusing, misleading or promotional". Is he back? (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think it should be simply taken out. However, the wording now has drifted away, without any substantive discussion, from what was discussed last year (see /Archive 9#A more moderate proposal). Basically, consensus was formed for a revision of the policy that included a caveat about promotional usernames -- namely, that such usernames should only be considered inappropriate when the user actually promotes the company or group (with edits, not just the username). This is much too subtle now -- "are used" to promote could mean anything, including having the username. This was done so that we don't conflate actual spammers with good-faith editors whose names are a bit companyish. I think we should go back to that. Mangojuice^talk 14:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

But if the user actually has to promote a company or group for a username to be considered promotional, why is it a username issue at all then? In that case, it's the promotional editing that's the problem, not the username. Is he back? (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that promotion is a problem, and that a username is seldom promotional. I'm happy for a ban of URLS as usernames; even that wouldn't have caught adznet because their username doesn't include the tld. Usernames seem to be used as something to block potential problems before they happen. It's seems odd that I could call someone a fucking cunt and get a short block, apologize, and come back, but having a username that I like and use across several websites, including my own domain, means I get blocked. ALSO usernames declaring a COI are a good thing, no? Otherwise COIs get hidden. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've sort of reconsidered this. I think that users with promotional usernames who promote something should be indef blocked, but not username blocked. These users are just obvious spammers and need to be shown the door - it is not their usernames that are a problem. There might, in theory, be users who use a username that matches a company or group where it would be good to issue a username block, but in my actual experience I haven't seen it come up. I note that on CAT:RFU there are lots of examples of users who have been blocked with promotional usernames who use the {{unblock-un}} template to try to be allowed to continue editing. Generally speaking, admins aren't willing to grant that request because the problem is the promotional edits, not just the username. So it would be good if people blocked for promotional usernames would not get the {{usernameblock}} template on their talk pages. Mangojuice^talk 18:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be cleared up, as the blocking of promotional usernames seems to be inconsistent with the general username policy and WP:COI. The username policy explicitly permits using another name that is appropriate. In the Blocks section of the COI guideline it states that user should be warned about COI editing and if they continue to edit in violation of the guideline they should be blocked. It is also inconsistent with WP:Suspected sock puppets. New accounts created by users who previous username was blocked as promotional are not considered sockpuppets at WP:Suspected sock puppets. So refusing unblocking the user to request a name change doesn't stop user from editing, as the user can simply create a new account. BlueAzure (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to have some standards, we can't very well let User:BuyAfilliateGoods.com be running around littering the edit histories with advertising. Wikipedia as a whole disallows promotion, and the username policy cannot be an exception to that. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The username policy isn't the reason to block them, for the reason that Mangojuice says. You want to block them for spamming. Username blocks say "Oh, if you have the patience to do so, you can try again under another name and we'll welcome you back", and that's not the policy we want for spammers. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There' no problem with buyaffilliategoods.com" appearing in edit histories. There is a problem if that user is adding inappropriate content to the encyclopedia. Sometimes (rarely?) this is misplaced good faith - "we're a very large webforum / usergroup / etc, our link deserves to be in the article", sometimes it's just spamming. Username blocks are an easy cop-out for admins who, and this is the important bit, don't want the bother of trying to engage with editors before blocking. Dan Beale-Cocks 07:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a very important point. People treat username blocks as "speedy blocks", except without the limitations that processes such as speedy deletion would have. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose- I see no need for a user to create an account with a website for a user name. For instance, what it the user made constructive edits but had a pornography website for a user name, I propose that rather than blocking users such as this, we make it clear to them that they MUST change there user name. If they fail to comply, then block them. Mww113 (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm a bit confused about what you're oppsing, Mww.

There are plenty of reasons that people would non-promotionally create an account with a website name. Often, people's website names are their online handles. If xkcd had registered as User:xkcd.com instead of User:xkcd, would we be clamoring to block him? What about User:SchuminWeb?

Now, there are problematic cases, and I'd say "BuyAffiliateGoods.com" would even be one of them. I can't even say I'd shed a tear if BuyAffiliateGoods.com was still username blocked -- I don't feel as strongly about this as I do about the newbies whose names we have arbitrarily designated as "confusing". But it's not necessarily in our interest to username block these kind of users, because then (as DBC said) we're hiding conflicts of interest from ourselves without them necessarily going away. So I'd support Mww113's solution also (which is much like my solution for 'confusing' usernames below). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A question

I can neither fly, nor am I an idiot. (at least I think I'm not) Does my username constitute misleading? Am I going be blocked? --( fi ) 22:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You are going to have to reduce the size of your signature, it should not make the line taller. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not going to be blocked. I hope we haven't descended that far into madness, at least. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/holding pen

I think Rspeer does bring up some extremely important concerns with the current policy, especially WP:BITE violations. Although I disagree with him that we should allow confusing usernames, I think we're all sensible enough to be able to come to a compromise that we're all happy with. I like the idea of discussing problems with usernames with the user first before blocking, I think the majority of cases can be dealt with without a block, and the user in question will happily change it, but if they don't agree to change clearly confusing usernames, or simply ignore the warning/concern then we can go ahead and block. To do this, it's important to keep check of what's happening with these users and make it clear what's happening with regards to their username. I therefore propose the holding pen (see the above link). After users have been told their username is against policy, their name could be entered at the holding pen so we know exactly who has been warned about their username. We could keep on checking the progress of users here and remove them when they have addressed the concern, or block them if they decide to ignore it. We could probably open this up to other usernames such as promotional or long usernames. I would suggest creating some templates that specifically address problems with different types of usernames and information about where a user should go to change their username. I'd appreciate some opinions on this. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to work from Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over. Mangojuice^talk 21:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that cat is that there are many varieties of concerns raised with those usernames, some aren't even block worthy, others should go via RFCN. This proposed page would solely be for usernames that are going to be blocked unless there is a change. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll go along with this process, but again I have my doubts that it will be necessary. The few cases I've ever seen where someone insisted on keeping a username people didn't like were resolved by RFC/N. Sometimes by threatening to block, and in very rare cases by actually blocking. Who are these people who make useful contributions while clinging to bothersome names until they get blocked? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

True, there aren't that many, but it would put a stop to blocks on sight and mean that users are monitored rather than blocks. I for one would certainly monitor the page and try and help users file for username changes wherever possible. The key to it would be the wording of any templates we give the users - make them friendly and thorough. This isn't really an RFCN concern - these would be usernames that are against the policy, but not blocked on sight to give users chance to change them without having to go through the whole block then unblock bitey process. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you've sold me on the idea. I like the page. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I like this, too, and support the proposal made below by User:Sambc as well. Why is that bot reporting usernames that never made an edit in the first place, by the way? --Conti|✉ 16:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, can we get HBC_NameWatcherBot to report entirely confusion-related pattern matches to the holding pen instead? I believe it has the capability to have alternate locations specified per-pattern. SamBC(talk) 10:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Claims that this was developed fully aware of WP:SUL.

Erm, no it wasn't. This is an impossible requirement to hold wrt SUL. All admins everywhere just got a login on en.wikipedia. Almost none of them have custom sigs here. They've likely never even READ the effing page here! :-P

I'd say that the devs just overrode any preferences en.wikipedia had. (Rightly so imho), and any remaining text here is now useless.

Also, due to ye olde descriptive not prescriptive rule of thumb, since in reality the vast majority of current users (including this bunch who just got invited over due to SUL ;-) ) frankly likely don't care, this text goes. :-P

Is there anything I'm missing? I think it would be great fun to invite over some ja.wiki people or ar.wiki people... ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

And when someone starts posting with a non-latin username and no custom sig, they won't be suddenly blocked; they'll be asked politely to set a custom sig, and pointed to this policy to indicate why. Nothing unreasonable about that. If they never post, then it doesn't matter! SamBC(talk) 15:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather not have them get that question ever, it's horrendously rude! And you just know some ID10T is going to go ballistic over it sooner or later, on either side of the request. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone reverted a requirement/recommendation to create doppleganger accounts, and pointed here for discussion. This should never be a requirement. Explain? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with kim - if a user has a non latin username it could be suggested that they have an english signature, or a doppleganger, but it should never be required that they do. I say we make the policy informative with respect to this rather than enforcement. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it says "are encouraged" right now. <scratches head>. I'd turn red anytime anyone actually made such a request though. It seems improper to me somehow. I know, somewhat emotional response. I think it has something to do with telling people you don't like their name. (While a name is often a person's most precious possession) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why this is somehow improper other than "somehow"? Making a simple non-mandatory request is not rude in itself, so why would you "turn red"? _(1 == 2)^Until 14:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a large number of non-mandatory requests that can make one turn red, (besides the obvious indecent ones). I think telling people their name sucks (implicit in this kind of request) is not a particularly nice thing to do. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This topic applies to Wikipedia:Signatures & Wikipedia:User page as well. I reverted Kim's change to Signatures as we should reach agreement on this issue and consistently update all pages. I initially reverted Kim's change to User page for the same reason, but then reverted myself as that one was more than a recommendation.

I don't think the Latin signature should be a requirement. I think a statement on the confusion factor and using a Latin signature as a mitigation is fine. However, I think it should only be informative and not even a recommendation. It should definitely not be a requirement.

I think the whole doppelganger account thing on the other pages needs to go. Single sign on is supposed to alleviate the need to create accounts on each project. Requiring, or even suggesting, people create Latin name accounts (even for the purpose of a redirect) goes against that. Plenty of en users have signatures that use a name that's not directly their account name and don't have a doppelganger account.

Signatures position on dopplegnager accounts was at least a suggestion. User page stated it as a requirement and also allowed a third party to create redirects to a non-Latin user name. That's going too far. I don't think we need the suggestion, but we absolutely don't need it as a requirement.

-- JLaTondre (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a Latin signature should at most be a suggestion for something you should do if you frequently edit on en:. Also, it's good timing that we got "confusion" to stop being a speedy-blockable offense. As SUL is implemented, there's going to be a hell of a lot more confusion than wondering how many g's to type in a row, and maybe people can find more constructive ways to deal with confusion than blocking people.

Kim, I appreciate the sentiment in removing the "Non-latin usernames" section, but doing so may not have the effect you want. This is the section that says it's okay to have a non-latin username at all, a concept that some here find non-obvious (saying things such as "This is the English Wikipedia, speak English"). Such a section is what we can point to when some knee-jerk username reporter says "OMG IT'S A NAME IN ARABIC IT SCARES ME" and reports it to either UAA or Ryan's new holding pen.

Of course, what we really need is to more explicitly say something along the lines of "Usernames are bigger than the English Wikipedia. Admins should take care not to challenge or threaten to block someone over a username that would be acceptable on other projects."

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the reason I reverted the change: if you look through the talk archives here you'll find lots of people who suggest banning non-latin usernames. And indeed, they were once disallowed and became allowed partly because of WP:SUL. However I do agree with JLT that we should probably stop even suggesting this dumb doppelganger idea. Frankly, a custom signature solves the problem almost completely, and a doppelganger account (purely to serve as a redirect) would do nothing to help. Mangojuice^talk 18:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree there. There's nothing wrong with politely asking that people who post here have a latin sig, or at least partly latin; I don't see what's so wrong with that. They can just romanise their username so other people can actually read it, and include the original version as well if they want. However, there is certainly no good reason, in my mind, for having doppelgangers and userpage redirects. SamBC(talk) 18:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We just set up SUL so people wouldn't have to mess around all the time with account settings. Then making policies telling people to mess around with account settings anyway is counter-productive. I'd like to use the same name everywhere, thanks. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

m:Global username policy??? Guess that's too much to hope for. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with suggesting that users with nonlatin usernames have some latin text in their signature for ease of identification, and that the doppelganger suggestion is going overboard. If someone edits here often, and is known primarily as the latin translation of their username, it might be a good idea to prevent impersonation, but that's covered by common sense and the existing advice concerning doppelganger accounts.--Dycedarg ж 00:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Rspeer: Now that makes sense. What wording would work for that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cut and paste is a wonderful thing. -- Ned Scott 01:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick note @JLaTondre: Do not revert if you agree with an edit. If you agree, please reinstate and expand the text. --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There was already an objection expressed. It was better to discuss & reach agreement. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Was it your objection? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If an edit happens that you are confident will be controversial and require discussion, it's both appropriate and responsible to revert and start the discussion even if you agree with it. SamBC(talk) 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not appropriate at all. It makes life extremely difficult.

In a democratic system, it is inappropriate or at least unwise to vote for what someone else might thing, you are supposed to vote your own preference.

In the same way on wikipedia, which is a consensus based wiki, it is inappropriate or unwise to make an edit about what you think other people will say. You are supposed to edit towards your own preference.

If you don't, the basic assumptions behind the current wording at Wikipedia:Consensus and WP:BRD break down. In fact, practically any straightforward consensus-seeking becomes confounded, as you dig through a whole stack of "I think Mr Smith might still have an objection over there" edits... only to discover that Mr. Smith does not actually exist.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, you don't seem to believe Sam, so I will repeat it. "If an edit happens that you are confident will be controversial and require discussion, it's both appropriate and responsible to revert and start the discussion even if you agree with it." I will also add this is not a democratic system, and we are not voting. "Your own preference" is not what you should be editing based on, you should be editing based on consensus, you argue based on you own preference not edit. Now I know you have different methods, but we work things out on the talk page when there is disagreement. The reason behind this is that Policy reflects the wide acceptance of the community, and if it does not have that yet then you need to get that.

Once someone begins to edit here, then it is not unreasonable to ask them for a transliteration if their name has no apparent pronunciation to English speaking people. It isn't a "rude" request, and if someone finds it rude then they have too much imagination. I don't think we should ever force the matter though. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry man, due respect and all, but you're one of the people who have been making my life rather difficult with your disruptive style of editing. I've chosen to abandon some of the areas of wikipedia where you edit, as there's simply no way to reach agreement with you anytime this year. :-P

"Once someone begins to edit here" is technically a little while ago, when SUL went live for admins. Apparently these sections have already caused confusion with at least one person (see below). This needs to be resolved quickly. The insular attitude of certain wikipedias is a serious problem, and I'm somewhat chagrined that en.wikipedia continues to have some insularity problems itself, despite being the most international wikipedia out there.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you think I am disruptive, but frankly I can't see how asking for consensus before editing a policy is disruptive. You link to "blocking consensus", but sorry I have to call that nonsense(another word came to mind), nothing I have done is blocking consensus.

The point I made remains, if someone begins to edit here with a name that cannot be understood by English speaking people then it is not rude to make a non-mandatory request for something an English speaking person can pronounce. Wanting to be able to distinguish one edit from another is not "insular", and if someone objects to the request they can refuse. Yes, this is an international project, but this is the English version of the International project. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Because you can't get consensus BEFORE editing anything, policy or otherwise. You can only know if you have consensus post hoc. This "edit first" assumption is what a lot of the wiki-side of policy is based on. If you turn it around, the wiki don't work so good no more.

Though note I can disregard consensus somewhat here, as per Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Exceptions. SUL is a developer/foundation change.

"Yes, this is an international project, but this is the English version of the International project." <- Voila, insular attitude ;-)

You're making my points for me nicely, please continue! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, consensus is reached on talk pages every day. Pointing to a couple of essays you like does not change that. Right now you are blocking consensus by arguing about how we should do consensus instead of just discussing the matter. When people here agree on something then the change is made. It happens all the time.

You quoted me, but you did not point out in which way I was wrong? Are you arguing that it is not an international project, or that this is not the English version of the international project? If I made your point for you then that is a real trick because I don't see your point. Oh, and while SUL is a developer level change, how we handle usernames is not so that is not really relevant. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please can you change your sig to something that makes sense in English? Thanks. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that'd be the best way to put it. Maybe we should work on a suggested wording to go into a template, especially if this is now more likely to be an issue often. SamBC(talk) 17:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think that was a suggestion for a template; it looks more like he's snarking at Until for having C code for a username. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for snarkiness. But, to try again gently, civilly and not making a point: someone come up with a suggestion for asking users to change their name, and then apply it to editors that you know rather than just some random newbie. The first thing an editor should see on their talk page should be a {{welcome}} template. unfortunately many new editors get a whacking big template telling them that their name violates policy and -even though there's no reflection on the editor- they should change it. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the original answer was apropos. Mean, hard hitting, to the point, at the limit, but nevertheless apropos. :-/ Poor infinite loop though. ^^;; --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC) It wasn't over the limit, but only because infinite loop had just stated that (s)he thought that that behavior was ok by them.

I'm dense (but not User:Dense) about questionable user names

I see the above discussions and feel like I'm missing vital specifics for lack of practical examples. So, like all people without good sense, I'll say "let's take me as an example." (apologies to anyone who can't see the Chinese characters used below as part of the questions)

On both en and zh I'm User:Shenme. Over on zh I could have chosen to be zh:User:什么 without any confusion (other than why someone would use a question as a name). Anyone with an exposure to Pinyin would see both names as the same.

(A) I'm assuming that the references here and at WP:SIG#Non-Latin are saying that using a user name here of 什么 would be objectionable. But is it

1. actually objectionable on sight,
2. or potentially objectionable given lack of insight,
3. objectionable upon objection by anyone,
4. objectionable upon objection by "enough people",
5. objectionable upon objection by "important enough people"?

(B) When saying that the use of custom signatures can ameliorate some or all concerns, does that mean that adding enough surrounding 'context' to the signature's appearance would not then require the change of user name? That one could have a user name of 什么 as long as that was not the user name apparently used? That is, could I keep a user name of User:什么 if the signature was:

1. 什么 (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)           (unchanged for reference)
2. 什么? (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
3. What? (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
4. What? (Huh?) 04:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
5. 什么! What? (什么? Huh?) 04:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(C) Or would it be a requirement (read as forced else user blocked) for the user to create User:What and redirect from there (and talk page) to their original and chosen User:什么, and then have a signature of

1. What (Huh?) 04:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
2. 什么 (Huh?) 04:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
3. 什么! What? (什么? Huh?) 04:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(D) And speaking of "both names ... the same", again, take me as an example. Should I create doppelganger accounts, in order to avoid non-Latin issues and/or potential confusion (un/intentional usurpation), any or all of these?

1. en:User:What           'shen me' means 'what'
2. en:User:什么           '什么' is pronounced 'shen me'
3. zh:User:什么
4. zh:User:What

I could go on (hey, then there are the complex characters, where '什麼' is different, but the same, as '什么'), but I think these are a good test set of user name problems. I've lettered and numbered to make it easier to comment (I hope).

Thing is, it's quite easy to talk in the abstract, but it also seems that the initial and uncertain concrete practice can be quite brutal for well-meaning new users. Shenme (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the consensus presently is, as demonstrated by the conversation above, that a nonlatin username is perfectly acceptable in all cases (as is required by SUL) but that for ease of identification some latin characters in one's signature is helpful, and may be requested but not required. Objections to a refusal to change one's user name or sig are not actionable as far as blocking goes, because we can't require everyone who gets an account here via SUL to do so just because they want to edit here a few times. So A is not an issue. As far as B goes, people would probably ask you to use a latin/semilatin signature for identification purposes. Out of the ones you provided, 2 would probably be good, and 3 or 4 definitely. Removing your user name altogether from your sig can be confusing though. 5 is kind of overboard, but acceptable. Really, if I were in that situation I think I'd go with 什么? (Huh?) and note what your name means on your userpage. Remember, the signature just has to be memorable enough to make you easily identifiable; it doesn't necessarily have to translate your username. As far as the doppelganger thing goes though, requiring people to create accounts with latin characters to use as redirects when the whole point of SUL is to prevent people from having to have multiple accounts on different wikis is just ridiculous. Even suggesting it is silly, hence it's removal from all applicable pages. Really, right now everyone just has to realize that nonlatin usernames are here to stay, and creating too many hoops for people to jump through just to do some simple editing isn't in anyone's best interest.--Dycedarg ж 07:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A) The name is fine. You will get people telling you to change the username - you can politely ignore them. You might get people asking you to consider using a sig readable in English, but than a comment in RfAs is often "use the same sig as your username". B) - no comment c) is odd, and would probably result in people(wrongly) telling you to change your username and accusing you of socking and people saying your making a POINT etc. dno need to create doppleganger accounts. You could have a bit of text on your user page explaining the name. Dan Beale-Cocks 09:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My responses:

• A) Anyone who objects is pointlessly obstructing inter-language collaboration.
• B) Some people might request some surrounding Latin-alphabet context. It would be unreasonable to make this any stronger than a request (and a threat of blocking would be especially unreasonable). And this should really only matter if you are a frequent editor on the English Wikipedia.
• C and D) Doppelganger accounts are a pure bureaucratic nuisance, and a requirement to use them defeat whatever benefit might come from unified usernames.(And then we're left with just the unaddressed problems of unified usernames, plus the problems of overzealous username policing, and everybody loses except the username police.) Yes, on the English Wikipedia we have asked people to get doppelganger accounts before, but I think that was a very short-sighted process created in reaction to a situation we had never really seen before.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A: Obviously, that username is fine. B: All of those signatures use Latin characters, which is taking a step towards helping those without the ability to view non-latin scripts. So in my view such signatures would be responding to the recommendation in the policy fully. But even if the signature was unaltered, that recommendation is not enforceable by blocking. C/D: Ignore the whole doppelganger thing. It never made sense to me, I'm not even sure what problem it is supposed to be helping with. That was in the policies simply because one person thought it was a good idea and no one objected too much until now. Mangojuice^talk 19:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing old signature

Hi, I changed my old username in anticipation of vanishing and I've decided to do it permanently. I'd like to change the old signatures for privacy concerns, and made a request for a bot to do it, but some people apparently object to that idea, so I was wonder if it is still acceptable for me to make the changes, or if there is some way to still get it done automatically? FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Do it by hand if it matters that much. You could also consider an automated tool like WP:AWB. Mangojuice^talk 08:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How exactly does "FrozenPurpleCode" pose a privacy concern? —Centrx→talk • 09:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I took it that FrozenPurpleCode is the changed username. Mangojuice^talk 14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

His old username isn't his real name either. —Centrx→talk • 01:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as long as I can do it, I guess I'll start working on using AWB then. As for my privacy concerns, I decline to give specifics in this public forum, as that would defeat the purpose of trying to secure my privacy. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

FrozenPurpleCube has changed his username from another obviously not real name and is now mass changing it throughout Wikipedia causing mass disruption to many pages. Most of the pages he/she is altering are archived pages, deletion reviews and the like but there is also a mass changing of other users comments where they reference his/her old name. All to no avail as a single look at any one of their edits will show the former username quite clearly and actually cause people to look more carefully than otherwise. Canterbury Tail talk 02:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but I'm afraid I don't see the problem, or why it's necessary to bring it up here. Are you suggesting some other solution? If so, what? FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have not bothered to change the old instances. I wasn't even interested in your old username, but I found out because a bunch of old AfDs I had on my watchlist got changed. There's no good way to remove all trace anyway. Mangojuice^talk 18:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Mangojuice, I would assume that some person or people have become aware of FrozenPurpleCode's old username that FPC did not want going through the old comments. For whatever reason. Given that I strongly regret a couple of RL people becoming aware of my main username, I can relate. 130.88.140.121 (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

promotional and role accounts

Some editors sign up with a role / promotional username. Many of those will make advertising contributions, and they then get blocked. I won't discuss those yet. But there's a few editors who sign up with a role account, and who seem to want to make useful contribs. Is there an easy way WP can warn them, and provide the {{welcome}}, so that they can make useful contribs without breaching COI or other WP policies? I'll admit the numbers of such editors are probably quite low (compared to blatant advertising). Here's an example of an editor that was blocked after making a single edit Special:Contributions/LSAC_editor to change the number "202" to "more than 200". The article was created in 2004. I dunno, maybe they were making a bunch of other unsuitable edits that I can't see? But it seems that it might have been better to tell them to register as individuals, declare COI, and make talk page edits for COI articles. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. We are sometimes blocking people for being forthright about who they are and why they are editing Wikipedia. If they are spamming, then by all means block them for spamming, but if they have an ordinary COI, it helps us a lot that their COI is revealed in their username. A username block makes no sense -- that says "you can keep editing Wikipedia with your COI, but this time don't tell us about it."

Some people's blocks for "promotion" confuse spamming with ordinary COIs, but I've recently seen people putting the non-harmful kind in the holding pen instead of on the block list, which is a good idea.

By the way, you can't tell a role account by the username. There is generally nothing in the username that tells you how many people are editing through it. So what you do with role accounts (which in my view is "explain to them Wikipedia's policy on role accounts, which they most likely haven't seen, and get one editor to take responsibility") is not a username issue. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be useful if these accounts could be blocked for spamming rather than the username violation. If people have created an account in the name of their company to write about their company, blocking them for "having a promotional username" is missing the point. Even worse is saying they can be unblocked if they agree to change their name (which the template does). The purpose of their edits will not change just because they have a new name. Spammers are not welcome here and can be firmly shown the door. Their usernames are a secondary problem. WjBscribe 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WJB, I've been thinking exactly the same thing for a while now. Interestingly enough, apart from the question of hard vs. soft blocking, the only real difference between a username block and another kind of block is what the block message is and the template left on the user's talk page. I've just created a new template for this type of block: Template:Uw-spamublock (also Template:Spamusername.) As someone who often reviews unblock requests, I find that these promotion-only spam accounts very often inappropriately appeal their block thanks to the normal template, and I have to decline those blocks. Mangojuice^talk 16:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

preaching?

How fine a line do we tread along the line of not offending people's religious sensibilities? Can something be done about something like this: User:America Needs Jesus? I fully support his religious choice, but perhaps he should do it a little less stridently in his username? Wikipedia is not about religion or converting or preaching, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.4 (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case, the place to start is by discussing with the user. I've started the ball rolling. If this doesn't work there's always WP:RFCN. Mangojuice^talk 14:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on AN

Editors may be interested in this discussion on the administrator's notice board. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with the old policy

Well, some opposition to this policy has finally showed up on AN. People who oppose the policy are welcome to comment here, just be sure to read and understand the current policy before demolishing a straw man.

The only change that was made on April 4, which some are now deeming controversial, was that usernames that are deemed "confusing" are no longer instantly blocked. Confusing usernames are still disallowed. You can even block people for confusing usernames, you just have to attempt to discuss it with the user first. It's a lot like the vandalism policy that way.

The "holding pen" is not a part of the policy. It's a process (just like UAA is a process) that was introduced at about the same time as the change. It's a tool that's there for people who want to watch certain users and see if they end up being disruptive. Nothing requires you to use the holding pen, but some people think it's useful. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a small change to clarify the section on confusing usernames; discussion indicates that few, if any, people think that usernames should never be blocked for being confusing, just not insta-blocked. The new text reads more consistently with the rest of the section IMO. SamBC(talk) 10:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this, and apologies for any confusion I've caused. While I'm here: "In the uncommon case that an otherwise good-faith contributor deliberately ignores requests to change their username, and goes on using a name that other editors agree is too confusing, then that username may be blocked to prevent further disruption." just what disruption does a confusing username cause? There's a few things that are obvious; a name too similar to another name, any names that indicate role accounts, or names that indicate adminship, or names that include the word "bot" for non-bot accounts. But why is "iqjwniquoweghfo" going to be blocked when they're making good faith contributions, and would "ამჟამად ქართულ ენაზე" be blocked? What's the difference? Some languages are consonant heavy and seem unpronouncable, (Welsh, Polish, Aztec) but have meaning. Do we just count the Zs,("Krzysztof Je drzejczyk"), or what? Dan Beale-Cocks 12:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, while all real names are expressly allowed, if you block something because it's confusing you often don't give the user a chance to say it's their real name before they are told "your name is confusing, so go away" (which is how it comes across), which is especially bad when the name in question is, or is based on, their real name. SamBC(talk) 14:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)