Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 9

Celebrity rule

I think this rule should be changed to read: Usernames that match the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person, unless that verifiably is your name, in which case please note this on your user page. We ought not be discriminating against the Michael Boltons of the world, right? —Random832 15:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• shrugs*. Why don't they just go by "Mike"?  ;) Mangojuice^talk 16:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree if you share the same name as a celebrity that you should be allowed to use your name, but that a notice on your userpage declaring you are not that celebrity is important. The policy seems ambiguous saying "unless you verifiably are that person", if your name was truly Micheal Bolton, then you really would be that person even if you are not the celebrity. I think we could make it clearer once we decide what the consensus is on this matter. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Blatant: obvious or egregious?

Per discussion at WT:UAA. How are we currently interpreting the word "blatant" in WP:U? I personally understand it to mean "obvious" rather than "egregious", but this may differ among users. For lack of creativity, the "pee" names to me are obvious violations of policy 5 insofar as they clearly refer to an excretory function (peewee, for example, does not meet this criteria), whereas others may see them as not egregious enough to warrant a block. My main concern with an emphasis on 'egregious' is that it is highly subjective, and it is unclear who should be Wikipedia's arbiter of taste. Once we establish consensus on which of these interpretations (or both) are guiding our UAA reports and username blocks, some rewording and clarifying of the username policy may be in order. ~Eliz81^(C) 19:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think it refers to how sure you are, not how severe the violation. I do agree with the idea of re-wording as this has been the source if much misunderstanding. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I consider it to mean "egregious". If it meant "obvious", then there would never be a case where you could be sure that leaving a username warning was the right thing to do. I'll elaborate, mostly by copying what I said on UAA.

Violating the username policy is just that, a violation of policy. Like most other violations of policy, we respond with a warning on their user page.

Some usernames are blatantly inappropriate. There's no point in leaving a warning and waiting for a response, because there's no conceivable thing we'd want to do with that username except block it. Such usernames might include racist slurs, attacks on other Wikipedians, impersonation, et cetera. Assuming there is not a glaring hole in the username policy, all blatantly inappropriate usernames should also be violations of policy. But there is no list of what makes a username blatantly inappropriate, because you're supposed to use common sense.

There is a well-defined class of violations that are not blatant. This doesn't mean you're unsure whether it's a violation, it means that you know it's a violation but you also know that a block isn't the appropriate response. A classic example would be Gggggggggggggg12. The name is confusing; even I often forget the number of g's to type (15) when referring to this incident. However, it was inappropriate to block the user, because he was a good-faith user and the block drove him away. If the admins who blocked him had recognized the existence of non-blatant violations, they would have left a somewhat friendlier {{uw-username}} message. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A username block does not need an assumption of bad faith. A well meaning editor can be required to choose a new name, it does not mean they are blocked from editing, only that they must change their name. I don't think a name has to be in the "oh my god that is terrible" category to have clear reason to block.

Frankly I think we do Gggggggggggggg12 a disservice by the suggestion that a username change might be optional and there should be a discussion when it is pretty much granted that the username will be disallowed. After all, the policy explicitly prohibits this type of name. Better to stop them from using the name sooner than later, if we are certain it is a violation. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think we could have done that user more of a disservice than we did by blocking him. "We're blocking you for your own good" doesn't go over very well with anyone. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement that usernames that are neither obvious nor egregious do not get blocked. Usernames that are obvious and egregious do get blocked. Perhaps the appropriate middle ground to focus on, for the purpose of this discussion, is names that are obvious but not egregious violations. (Not to say the discussion wasn't already heading in this direction.) ~Eliz81^(C) 20:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I want to focus on. I think that the case of obvious but not egregious violations is exactly why we have username warnings, and that blocking the user without discussion is WP:BITEy, unnecessary, and out of proportion to most other remedies on Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:U says "Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are confusing, misleading, disruptive, promotional or offensive." So I say we don't allow them if we are sure they meet these standards, per existing policy, and per the fact that it is a good idea. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but to you "not allow" means "instantly block", while to me it doesn't. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

RFCN/talk page warnings should be for usernames that are not obvious violations. And as was said before, a username block is not assuming bad faith. One option would be to make the standard username block template more friendly and AGF, even though it already says in bold that "you are encouraged to create a new account", maybe we could change the tone of template to be more welcoming, and make it very easy to create the new account from the template, making it clear it's the name not the user. Obvious violations need to be blocked, and are already provided for in WP:U: "Clearly inappropriate usernames should be reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention", which supports the 'obvious' over 'egregious' interpretation. Unfortunately, then we have the somewhat contradicting previous line: "Unless a username is a blatant infringement of username policy..." and the following line: "The starting place to discuss a non-blatant username violation is on the user's talk page." I propose changing "blatant" to "obvious" and "non-blatant" to "non-obvious". With the recent reorganizing to emphasize the 5 general policies, this will hopefully still prevent "excessive" UAA blocks. ~Eliz81^(C) 03:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I support that change from "blatant" to "obvious". I think this will help reduce misunderstandings. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

While perhaps this is an issue that needs to move elsewhere (suggestions?), I think rspeer's concern is valid in that we shouldn't needlessly scare off potentially valuable contributors with a big ol' block. The level 1 username block template isn't very nice, so I created a mock-up of a nicer one here. rspeer especially, does this address some of your concerns about WP:BITE? ~Eliz81^(C) 03:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Shiny. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but they still see this which is less shiny. GDonato (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Yes. It does have a certain sheen? Seriously though, feel free to comment on it and edit it. It ain't perfect, and the main 'create a new account' box could be even bigger. ~Eliz81^(C) 04:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh, niiiiiice... much better wording. Two nits: to request a change in username the user has to get temporarily unblocked first, and the template seems to contradict that; also, might be best to have two version - one for users with contribs, one without. SamBC(talk) 06:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're seriously proposing that we can make blocks "nice" enough that newbies don't mind when it happens to them? It won't work. See GDonato's comment about the fact that your "shiny" template will be surrounded by red boxes and X's. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'm seriously proposing it. GDonato's point is taken, but I don't see why that precludes us from making the 'create new account' option more prominently displayed in the template. ~Eliz81^(C) 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to that because it would encourage username-blocking admins to take blocking even less seriously than they already do. You cannot make being blocked a nice experience, so don't pretend to be able to. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Blatant includes both obvious and egregious, so this is a non issue. Rlevse 10:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't support the change from "blatant" to "obvious." I think that would encourage bad practice in blocking users who have bad usernames, but who should be dealt with in a more polite manner. We already go way too far on the side of WP:BITE in implementing this policy. For a name to be blockable, it should be both (1) an obvious violation and (2) one for which a preemptive block is necessary (as opposed to talking with the user). Typically, (2) means the violation appears intentional or egregious. Mangojuice^talk 14:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

While a vocal minority thinks names need to be "egregious" before blocking, I don't think consensus reflects this. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I've seen a consensus on username-related issues. Where is the consensus you are referring to? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

rspeer's concern is valid. Blocking people is never a kind thing to do, especially to brand new users. If a username is really so bad, they should be blocked at the software level. (we have a username blacklist around here somewhere), just add a regex that matches 10 or more of the same letter repeating, then the user gets a message saying his name is not appropriate at the point of account creation. The only few times in which I feel a name should be blocked are those that are very obvious. User:IHATEJEWS, User:ARABSSUCK, User:WHITEPEOPLEARERACIST. All these without the caps. Its damned obvious to pretty much any reasonable mind that those are offensive. The other 'class' that I see as block on sight would be those such as XXXX on WHEELS!!, or names that are associated with well known vandals or sock puppets. Others I can think of would be clear cases of advertising, etc. Everything else can wait until the name actually edits. Evaluate the contribution, if you thought a name was promotional, wait and see if the user goes to promote a product, if they don't then who cares. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BITE was never designed to stop blocking new users due to policy violations. What is more you cannot just use a regex to prevent these names because offensive names are often made from non-offensive components, and they have a high likelihood of prevent legitimate usernames. The fact is that the policy lists types of names that are not allowed, so we should not allow them. Leaving a message on their talk page is useful if you are not sure of it is allowed or not. But if you are sure it is of the type to be disallowed, then we should not allow them, it is that simple. Soft blocking prevents a username from editing, not an editor. Yes, people will get pissed off, but they also get pissed off then they find out we don't allow original research, that doesn't mean we let them do it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that position has agreement, perhaps its time to have a policy request for comment on these issues? (can you point me to where it has been agreed WP:BITE does not apply?) And yes I think WP:BITE does very well apply. You can indeed block nonesense names at a software level. User:Gggggggggggggggggasdf whatever can be prevented by regex. I know what I'm talking about here. ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'll do you one better, there is a significent portion of our community citing WP:BITE as a problem with our username practices. (by the way WP:RFCN has sorta regressed from the prior MFD of reform.) Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Newbies have not read the username policy. And I think your comparison to original research is apt: when a newbie tries to do it, we leave them a note saying it's not allowed. We don't block them the moment they do it. One reason for this is because -- guess what -- WP:BITE does in fact apply to policy. (What the heck else would it apply to? People who bite newbies for fun?) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Except in the case of usernames the user cannot help continuing to violate the policy unless they change usernames. The only way a user can head this warning is to change usernames. The block is purely preventative in a manner that a warning cannot be. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How bad for Wikipedia is it if someone edits with a violating but non-egregious username? Do any of you know the user User:Yuckfoo? Well, I had a hard time respecting him/her because their sig always made everything they said look like an insult. But I am mature enough (and I think most of our users are) not to take it personally, and I'm not bothered enough by it that I would want to intrude on Yuckfoo's personal business enough to say that he/she should change usernames. That username isn't a good idea, but who does it hurt? It hurts the user who chose it; it makes them seem immature or rude when they don't intend it, and doesn't ultimately have a meaningful effect on the project. Blocking users for this kind of thing is a very firm approach to a problem that isn't that big of a deal. Even if they understand that we still welcome the contributor, just not the bad username, it is still basically a zero-tolerance policy and quite unfriendly. Mangojuice^talk 19:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think a particular type of violation should be disallowed, then it should be your goal to remove it from the policy. But what we should not do is decide it is not allowed, then allow it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy. Once again, there are appropriate courses of action that fall in between "allow" and "block them with no warning and no discussion". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

But what about users being blocked for a policy violation that does not exist? Or what about the users not being blocked for a violation that does exist? Changing policy only works if RFCN is following policy. A few discussions show that it clearly isn't. Dan Beale-Cocks 22:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Because of the negative effect of blocks on new users, and the fact that nothing hideous happens just because there's a few signatures and log entries from a bad username, I don't think that block-without-attempted-discussion should happen with non-egregious names. It's hard to define, but I think we should have a go. Generally speaking, there is an argument that no user should be blocked on the grounds of username without discussion unless it's egregious or clearly deliberate. A more polite block notice, posted to talk rather than just in the block comment, does a lot to help, but talking about it first is even more polite and will, I reckon, annoy/scare off far fewer users. SamBC(talk) 20:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if a name is clearly not allowed by policy, but it is not egregious, then I talk to the guy. What do I say? Do I tell him he has some sort of choice in the matter when he does not? Do I tell him if he continues to edit under the same name he will be blocked? What would I have to talk about with Mr. GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG47? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't pretend to have a magic answer. I'm expressing a problem as I, and others, it would seem, see it, and looking to the direction of possible solutions. The solution is likely to be a compromise somewhere between the status quo and the idealistic "never block when non-egregious". Stating the goal, even if it's not attainable, tends to help. SamBC(talk) 20:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

They have as much of a choice as someone who's warned for vandalism does. Let's talk about it in terms of vandalism first. Such a user can keep vandalizing (and get blocked), stop vandalizing and go on editing Wikipedia, or disappear from Wikipedia.

A user who gets a username warning has similar choices. They can disappear from Wikipedia, they can request a name change or start a new account, or they can ignore you and keep editing, which can result in them being blocked.

It is exceedingly rare for a good-faith user to refuse to change their name from one that violates the username policy. I've never seen it happen. If it does happen, it's probably because they disagree that there's any problem with the name, so it's the kind of situation that should go to RFCN. It's also the kind of situation that RFCN is meant to handle.

As for what you say to a user with a bad username: you don't have to worry about it too much. Other people have already thought this through and come up with the {{uw-username}} template. I'm not asking you to have a soul-searching discussion with the user.

I really hope you can see the difference between a user taking the step to change their name after they've been asked to, and a user being forced to change their name by a preemptive block. The second is an unpleasant situation no matter how you try to sugar-coat it, and it reinforces the stereotype of Wikipedia admins being closed-minded and on a power trip. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Limit length

There seems to be a lot of confusion about long usernames where some admins block and some don't and such blocks are viewed as bitey. I therefore propose that a technical limitation be placed on username length at 32 characters to ensure a fair application of policy. GDonato (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

For reference, here is a string of 32 characters:

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

-Amarkov moo! 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it is adequate for everyone to think of a nickname and the overwhelming majority of real names. GDonato (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed to add a hard limit of 40 characters at MediaWiki talk:Usernameblacklist. I'm choosing 40 instead of 32 because that's what the WP:UAA bot automatically reports. Mangojuice^talk 15:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the software already had a hard limit. Is 32 / 40 / xx characters enough for name sin all languages? I think this is a good idea. (but what are you going to do with someone who either has a name of zaqxswcdevfrbgtnhymjukilop (26 chars, non random)) Dan Beale-Cocks 15:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Long names are only disallowed if they are confusing. I suppose we could switch to a blanket prohibition, I just don't see it as being much less bitey, though I don't think enforcing policy is biting at all unless done in a rude fashion. 1 != 2 15:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Any number is only going to make sense if whatever is counting it (bot or software) treats multibyte characters (as in unicode in UTF-8) as single characters. Just a thought. SamBC(talk) 16:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I know the username bot counts multi-byte characters as one, not sure about the username blacklist. 1 != 2 17:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The bot certainly wasn't recently. I don't know if it was fixed, but names with around 20 characters were being reported. I did report it as a bug, but didn't keep track of what happened. SamBC(talk) 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I could be wrong about that, I just know that perl has multi-character text mode support, it probably needs to have a variable put through utf8::upgrade to work properly. 1 != 2 18:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest something like this is tried on the blacklist, at least the user is turned away at the software level, and can immediately change names, rather then being blocked later for failure to read a policy. (come on they are a new user!, the vast majority of new users probably never read WP:U). We can actually try it now... just make it an very high limit.. (100 chars anyone ;) ) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. It will be more acceptable to them since they know everyone who has selected an excessively long name will get the same treatment, rather than You have been blocked, which is bitey no matter how it is done. GDonato (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there already a hard limit at 64 characters, so setting the limit at 100 chars would seem to be, uh, sub-optimal. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

IP contributions

Is it possible to move my anonymous edits so that they show up under my username? –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 00:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No. If you want to, you can list your IP address on your userpage so people can look at your anon editing history. But I would hesitate to recommend that; revealing your IP compromises your privacy. Mangojuice^talk 15:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Also if you have a dynamic ip, the address is reassigned every time you recoonect to the internet and so other people's contributions may also show up. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 15:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul

I've been thinking about this policy a lot over the past few days and I really believe it's time for a change. I think we need to scrap quite a few parts of it that turn it into what is probably one of the strictest username policies on the internet. As a whole, Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored but this policy is full of quite a few silly rules that stop good faith usernames that won't offend anyone or really cause any problems. I believe there are two key parts to the policy which we should still keep; the offensive usernames (obviously so people aren't offended) and names which are similar to other users (so people don't get mixed up) - I really do believe the rest we can live without. At the end of the day, is it really bad for a user to use the name of a company unless the username itself is really promoting that company - if there's a COI problem, block them for editing abuse, but not for username. If the usernames apparently random, well who really cares? We have talk page and contrib links that are easily clicked on and let's face it, it's most likely a throwaway account as the user won't be able to remember their username themselves. Another thing that I think should be addressed is the use of blocks against usernames, our tolerance level at present is shocking, we block everything. Really, who is User:Poop going to offend? Hopefully no-one. Unless there's a very serious issue with a username, I say don't block and let them edit, if it may infringe on the policy, then let the user get on and edit. I really hope we can try and sort this policy out once and for all. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also say to keep a prohibition on overly long names, since those are annoying in signatures. But past that, I agree. -Amarkov moo! 21:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoah, we want to block people for being annoying now? SamBC(talk) 23:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the policy could do with a certain amount of de-CREEPing, although I'm not sure if the examples grew in the way they did because of creep or what. The basic principles are okay, particularly the five categories in my opinion, although offensive and disruptive ought to be combined into disruptive - disruptive to harmonious editing, as the policy says later on. SamBC(talk) 23:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan, although I would include lengthly or confusing names; those are the only ones I have a particular problem with. i ^said 23:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The real problems seem to stem from some of the people applying the policy lacking common sense, or lacking the patience to discuss names with the users involved. If the only way to address that is to change the policy, then fine, but I'd favour a rewrite of the policy to emphasise the need to avoid WP:BITE and to discuss before blocking, and then to try and stamp out the instances of blocking borderline usernames on sight. Carcharoth 00:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Ryan. I've been thinking about this quite a bit after the MfD for RFCN started. The amount of manpower that's spent on policing usernames is extraordinary. We have editors (mostly people who are aspiring to be admins) trawling through the username creation logs, looking for the slightest violation of the username policy and reporting loads of names using Twinkle. These reports then get dealt with by a complicated system with arbitrary standards, and take a lot of time for admins.

Trying to change the process by "adding instructions to contact the user first" or "adding more links to WP:BITE" etc has been tried ad nauseam. To be honest, I think Wikipedia would be better off with a much more radical approach:

• Get rid of the username policy altogether - the part in Wikipedia:Vandalism about "malicious account creation" is enough.
• Only block clearly and unquestionably offensive or attack usernames, and if someone chooses a "borderline", "annoying" or "confusing" username - well, it's their choice to make a fool of themselves.
• Delete WP:UAA and WP:RFCN altogether - since we're only going to deal with the really blatant usernames, the number of reports will be dramatically reduced, and it can be dealt with by WP:AIV or WP:ANI.
• Get rid of username reporting via Twinkle.
• Decide a maximum length for usernames and enforce it technically - the software already blocks names longer than about 60 characters, and I'm sure it's easily doable to reduce this to whatever the community decides is a reasonable max length.

I honestly think doing this will be an improvement - it will free up a lot of time for admins who can help improve the encyclopedia instead of policing usernames, and I don't think there will be any problem with blocking fewer names - we will still block the grossly inappropriate ones, and as Ryan said I know no other site that has such a strict username policy and such a large bureaucracy for checking people's usernames.

Note that I voted "keep" on the RFCN MfD. That is because, given the current situation and policy, I believe that we need RFCN to provide an outlet for names that might otherwise be blocked, but if we implement my solution above and just stop worrying that much about username "violations" that nobody other than the UAA/RFCN regulars will notice - there will be no need for this bureaucracy at all - and at that point, both UAA and RFCN can be deleted. Is he back? 00:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is a breath of fresh air, and I wholeheartedly support it. Working within the system has gotten me nowhere, as it makes me keep running up against the same three or four people who believe that it helps Wikipedia to religiously enforce the strictest possible interpretation of this policy. There are so many out there who agree that the current username-blocking system is completely out of control. It's time to shut down this broken, self-perpetuating process, because it's not possible to make it saner from within. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There's lots of stuff wrong with the policy. "Similar names" is used to block names that are not really that similar; "too long or confusing" is used to block names that are neither long nor confusing; "the same as a famous person, unless you are that person" is daft, considering how common some people's names are, and how 'famous' is interpreted to mean 'anyone that's had some mention in an obscure source at some time'. Some stuff could be useful - does wiki want 'promotional usernames'? - but the way they get implemented is bizarre. Changing this policy, and serious reform at RfCN, would get rid of a huge amount of IDONTLIKEIT. (Or get rid of a huge amount of IDONTSEETHEPROBLEMBUTIHAVENTREADPOLICY - see username mentalbreakdown as an example.) Dan Beale-Cocks 11:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm personally delighted that Wikipedia has a strict username policy - WP is not Myspace, Utopia or the International Court of Human Rights - and for the most part I think it gets implemented as sensibly as can be reasonably expected, by people who are willing to deal with username matters. I don't believe for a moment that doing away with RFCN or UAA will suddenly free up significant amounts of admin time to do other things - people work on what they want to work on, hence you won't see anyone eagerly rushing over to deal with backlogs just because the name boards disappeared. Re: WP:BITE, I don't like to see anyone get bitten, but I think some people need to accept that internal affairs on WP are always going to have an element of rough-and-tumble, and that serious editors will be happy to choose normal usernames. I was recently quoted BITE and CIVIL for blocking a disallowed username, which the user was aware was being debated, with a perfectly charm-schooled explanatory note. If that's biting, some people need to get off the island, because here there be tygers. Deiz talk 15:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Yes. But we tend to try and keep the tygers penned up in the interior and allow the newcomers to paddle around in the shallows and play around in the large sandbox/beach. Really, we don't want tygers prowling along the shoreline and bounding into the surf to scare off newly shipwrecked editors. They might decide to swim off to another desert island, after all. Ooh. Did you just hear that loud twang? I think the analogy just snapped under the strain. :-) Carcharoth 17:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite Deiz's comment there seems to be pretty strong consensus for a rewrite here. I certainly agree. My feeling is that we need to think more carefully about why we disallow usernames. I think it comes down to an even more basic list: preemptive blocks applied to bad-faith usernames, blocks applied to usernames that are actually used for an inappropriate purpose (like offending or needling others, or advertising), and "bad idea" usernames that we should just let slide, as it does more harm than good when we insist on changing it. Mangojuice^talk 16:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. The current list muddles the issue by conflating different kinds of username problems that merit different responses. Mango, is your proposed IU replacement still relevant, or do you want to adjust it a bit? I think the most productive thing we can do here is to examine a single option and see who supports it over the status quo. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it needed adjustment, and I have just done so. Mangojuice^talk 17:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Having thought about all this more, and following on from what I've said at other WP:U-related talk pages (I forget what was said where), here's what I think are the key elements of the "problem" (or how the policy is bad):

1. Misuse of WP:UAA and WP:RFCN - there seems to be widespread misunderstanding of these, especially among those who don't regular discuss (in the case of RFCN) or block/refuse (UAA).
2. The section on unacceptable usernames has become rather chaotic.
   1. The 5 categories aren't necessarily things that should be handled in the same way.
   2. Disruptive and offensive are basically the same, given the reason to take issue with offensive names (makes harmonious editing difficult): perhaps both could be described by "disruptive", or even better "uncivil".
3. Simply disagreement between policy and practice - practice is being far more negative, blocking and bitey than sanctioned by policy, which could be seen as a breach of trust by administrators. Of course, administrators have discretion and are human - I'm not slamming all (or any) admins here.

I will probably put this into a more concrete proposal at some point, but the way I see it there's names that we don't want, ever (promotional, certain sorts of misleading), and then there's the ones that make harmonious editing difficult (generally the uncivil ones). I think this works along similar lines to Mangojuice's proposal, but subtly different in ways I can't quite put my finger on while I feel annoyingly sleepy. SamBC(talk) 18:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Forced rename" for non-blatant usernames with edits

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names#Change name or else.... Cheers, Melsaran (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

debate of interest

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names (3rd nomination). Mangojuice^talk 15:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there some sort of campaign to make it hard for an admin to talk to other editors about a username before deciding on a block? I remember when I could pop by RFCN and ask about a name, now I pretty much have to decide myself. Thanks. 1 != 2 15:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How about, when in doubt, don't block? Then you don't need backup opinions. Mangojuice^talk 21:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How about when in doubt inform yourself, then make a decision based on that? 1 != 2 00:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate names change proposal

I'd like to put forward my draft User:Mangojuice/IU as a potential replacement for the current "inappropriate usernames" section. In a nutshell, the big changes are: (1) focus on why certain usernames get blocked, as opposed to what's wrong with the username itself, (2) just allow usernames that are merely "bad ideas" - don't force such users to change names and don't block them, unless the name is actually causing problems.

The main purpose, for those not familiar, is to revise Wikipedia's username policy which is one of the harshest on the Internet, and to simultaneously try to reform current practice so that good-faith users who aren't causing disruption are not treated overly harshly.

This is a big change, and to get anything done we need to avoid two things: first, if there are details that aren't quite right we can always edit more later on. For now, better to get an idea if this more or less is right. Second, let's try to see if this can more or less satisfy people before we start seeing parallel proposals (or we'll run into a too-many-cooks problem). If this looks like it's getting preliminary support, I'll advertise the issue more broadly to get wider input. Mangojuice^talk 04:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice, you should probably put up a notice on WP:VPP and WP:AN, and perhaps a couple of noticeboards to ensure that no one can later claim they didn't know about this. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any discussion about long names or confusing ones. Was this intentional, an oversight, or something I missed? i ^said 04:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I know the answer to this one. The new policy is about why to block names, while the old policy was about which categories of names to block. A long, confusing name might be a suspect username (such as if it looks like a throwaway sockpuppet account), in which case it should be blocked; it might simply be a "bad idea" username, in which case there's no reason to block; or it might be a perfectly legitimate non-English username, at which point you shouldn't even be thinking about blocking. The old policy conflated all of these cases. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rspeer, you've got the right idea there. Basically, if a username is so confusing, it's disrupting things, then it can be blocked. But if not, as would be the case most of the time, it would just be a "bad idea." Fly: I will gladly post to WP:AN/WP:VPP, but I'm holding off; I want to make sure this satisfies those who comment here first. Mangojuice^talk 14:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Suspect" usernames being blockable seems to be a poor choice of words. It implies "hmm, that's suspicious, better block it". I like the gist, the intent, but not the specifics. I know I've been saying I'll draft something to clarify what I mean, but I've been busy. I would include a category of "incivil usernames" that are blockable-on-sight (if sufficiently incivil), much like the union of the current disruptive and offensive usernames, but with some added sanity. I'll review more if and when I have time. SamBC(talk) 06:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Uncivil" (not "incivil") lowers the bar even more. People already pretend to be offended by words such as "kickass", and it's easier to call something uncivil than offensive. And "uncivil" isn't even covering the same names as "suspect"; if we see a name that follows a sockpuppet pattern, there may be nothing uncivil about it but it should still be blocked. "Suspect usernames" is right on, encompassing the names we can and do block because we can tell they're up to no good.

And I'm sorry, Sam, but I strongly urge you to hold off on making your proposal, so it's not concurrent with Mangojuice's. On Wikipedia, as soon as you have two simultaneous proposals, you have no progress. I've seen this many times. It would make a lot more sense for you to work with Mango's proposal now -- which I would think you'd prefer over the status quo -- and if that proposal doesn't pan out, we can try a proposal of yours afterward. rspeer / ɹəəds</ span>ɹ 07:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The "suspect" wording can be changed. Perhaps the section should just be about "preemptive blocks." Mangojuice^talk 14:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this draft, and I supprot your changes. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, the username policy is ambiguous as it is, and I really believe this draft makes it even more so. I'm also not sure about the wording, it tries to bring in editing patterns with username violations and generally speaking, editing patterns should have nothing to do with it - that can be delt with via disruption blocks, not username blocks. A username block should almost always be down to the username and nothing to do with the editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice gave me an example of why it can be important to take edits into account. Imagine a new user named "Resper". It's a perfectly valid name, and there's no reason to assume any ill intent -- but if they adopt a signature similar to mine and go around pretending to be an administrator, they should be blocked for impersonation. If the policy doesn't allow distinguishing users based on how they use the username, then we either need to have a separate process to block the malicious "Resper" (even though it's really a username issue), or worse, people will assume impersonation and block names like Resper preemptively. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

But that's a conduct issue more than a username issue. I understand what you're saying here, and most admins would hard block it as a username violation. What I'm suggesting is that this situation is in the minority with regards to username blocks - most should be done entirely on the username, as I said - if there's editorial problems, we can block for those. I agree that ocassionally you have to take into account edits, but not that often. In many ways I agree we should change practice to only block names that are causing a problem, rather than creating a perceived problem that hasn't happened yet. I like parts of this, but I just feel it's going to make it more confusing than it already is. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I look at username blocks as a conduct issue. It's part of the user's behavior on wikipedia: a user should not have their username taken away unless they do something wrong with it: otherwise we might end up blocking non-offending users "for their own good" which they really don't understand well. Mangojuice^talk 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Usernames or not just about conduct, but also good faith decisions that lead to problem. That is why we do a soft block on 95% of username blocks, because no assumption of bad faith is needed. 1 != 2 17:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Some inappropriate usernames are created in good faith, but not appropriate here on wikipedia, I guess that's why I don't see it as a conduct issue. My take on it is if we block account creation then it is a conduct issue, if we don't block accound creation, then it's soley a username issue. Anyway, there looks to be quite good support for your proposal so far, and although I'm not too keen with it, don't let that stop you adding it - that's not how consensus works. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the missing part about apparently random or confusing names. There is a long standing practice of soft blocking names such as "User:hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" and "User:hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh" due the the confusion. Also names like "User:21jknv8914nvoiQH894" should be soft blocked. Policy should be descriptive of practice, and this is the practice. Otherwise it seems to be a good start, it may be missing other things, but this is the part the leaps out at me. 1 != 2 16:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The practice exists only because it's what's written in the policy. When I ask people why they want to block such usernames, their answers are either "they confuse me" or "it's policy, see?", neither of which is founded in a good reason to block. The proposal here is to change the policy, and one of the changes is that confusing an admin is no longer punished by insta-blocking.

Blocking usernames simply for being "confusing" is one of the things that makes username blocks so arbitrary. By meta-policy, we have to allow usernames in other languages and other scripts, which are often far more confusing than repeated letters. However, people still use this to justify blocking names for having repeated letters or being in a foreign language, without applying the common sense check of "does this block help Wikipedia?". The new policy should not retain harmful parts of the old policy just for the sake of tradition. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the usernames are harmful, and that the part of the policy not allowing them is helpful. Such names are difficult to distinguish from each other, and fail to "identify" the person as is the point of a name. It is in policy because there was consensus for it, not because of tradition. I still think there is consensus for it. What is more, it is not about "confusing the admin", but confusing the community. They are also not being "punished" as you say. 1 != 2 17:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I will never comprehend the argument that a block is not a punishment. Some serious changes to the MediaWiki interface would be necessary for it to even be possible to place a block that does not inherently punish the user.

But it looks like Mango has added "Usernames should not be exceptionally confusing" to the "inappropriate use of usernames" section. I am concerned about it -- there are many people here who are prepared to declare a native Nicaraguan name "confusing", and might escalate that to "exceptionally confusing" -- but that won't stop me from supporting the proposal. I'll just keep a close eye on how that part is applied if the proposal goes through.

I'd suggest a "Note 3" pointing out that usernames in foreign languages or scripts cannot be considered "exceptionally confusing", to comply with the meta-policy (which is also just a good idea) that users must be able to use the same username on multiple projects. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The (not) being punished issue seems to be at the heart of the differences between the two "camps" here, which I seem to merrily stand astride... I think the situation is that people aren't being punished, but will feel that they are. This is one reason to prefer giving an opportunity to request a change in the vasy majority of cases. However, the name change system doesn't allow this; in those cases, telling people they can re-register is fine. However, it is understandable, and we have seen it happen, that a user turns up, gets a username block, and then doesn't bother to come back because it just isn't a good welcome. The seperate concerns must be reconciled. SamBC(talk) 18:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(e/c)FWIW, the WP:BLOCK policy states up front "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users", and that usernames may be blocked to prevent disruption. The perceived harshness and inherent punishment/biting of blocking is outside the scope of this discussion, especially if much of the block template formatting is at a Mediawiki level. The question is how we can best write username policy so that inappropriate usernames not disrupt the building of an enyclopedia, which is also fair to policy-ignorant, well-meaning newbies. ~Eliz81^(C) 18:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rspeer I agree with your concerns regarding "Usernames should not be exceptionally confusing" being too wide. This is why I like the current wording which is much more specific "Usernames that consist of a confusingly random or lengthy sequence of characters, e.g. "ghfjkghdfjgkdhfjkg" or "aaaaaaaaaaaa"". I also this "excessively lengthy" is an issue as well. 1 != 2 18:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

One most important clarification is to not discriminate against non-English usernames, whether because of their length, so-called 'confusion', for containing non-English characters, or for containing inappropriate words in English (e.g., Thai names with 'porn' in them). We simply must be all-inclusive in this respect, and the current username policy should more clearly reflect this under the 'confusing' header. Any confusing, lengthy username- be it proper name, nickname, or other Non-English words- where it could reasonably be another language should not be blocked on sight. ~Eliz81^(C) 18:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that real names should not be disallowed due to being "confusing" or containing a string that would be rude in another context. Of course common sense should apply to names like User_talk:Cuntass, even if it is a real name. 1 != 2 18:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I allowed to comment on this, or do I have a COI? :-/ Dan Beale-Cocks 14:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the need to block random/repetitive names, but this is not the essence of the proposal, so I just went ahead and added that to the list of ways in which a username can be inappropriate. It doesn't discuss random/repetitive specifically, but it does now mention confusing names. Mangojuice^talk 18:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Non-English names include more than real names. We have to allow non-English pseudonyms as well, because users are encouraged to reuse their username across projects. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and clarified my comment to reflect this: ny name I meant username. ~Eliz81^(C) 23:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to the issue of why we block names that are "random-looking" or have repeated letters. Until's argument for doing so is that they are difficult to distinguish from each other, but we don't block other kinds of names for the difficulty of distinguishing them from unused names. I would have trouble remembering the difference between "Until(1 == 2)" and "Until (1==2)", but it's not an issue because the latter username doesn't exist.

There's no confusion in someone having 14 h's for a name -- at least, not any more than someone having Chinese characters for a name. (14 h's are in fact considerably easier to type.) If that user becomes established and then someone shows up confusing people by having 15 h's for a name, then by all means disallow 15 h's. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's scary, I was about to post exactly the same counterargument: User:Until (1==2) or User:Until(1==2) or User:Until(1 ==2), et cetera. Let me aslo make the point that I would never expect to get "RyanPostlethwaite" correct without looking it up, and there are dozens of other users with the same kind of issue. Honestly, typeability is just irrelevant, because we all know we hardly ever type in someone's username: more likely, we go from a watchlist, a signature, or a contribution in a page history or contributions list. On the other hand, I do feel that these usernames can be inappropriately used, and in some cases are suspicious. If someone registers a random username, my immediate reaction is that they don't intend to edit on Wikipedia after today, which throws up all kinds of red flags; same with a very repetitive name, so if such a user starts vandalizing, I'd probably quickly apply an indef block. And in some cases I might do a preemptive block. But if the user has a name that is unique the user isn't trying to interfere with my ability to locate their user page and contributions, I would think the name is, at worst, just a bad idea. Mangojuice^talk 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So what kinds of names are supposed to be "exceptionally confusing" besides names that are already suspect for being throwaway names? The only examples I can think of are names that make non-standard use of Unicode... like that guy whose name was a circle of half-circles around the "r:" of "User:", or hypothetically names that made unnecessary use of RTL marks or non-printing characters. But I'd like to be able to clarify that these are a much different problem than "too many a's". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with blocking someone for appearing to be a throw-away account, as I do not think we should use usernames to profile accounts for whether they are vandals or not. Username blocks should be done solely based on whether the username is bad, not that it makes us think the user might vandalize in the future.

Also, I frankly think that the whole "promotional usernames" thing has gone a bit overboard. Almost 50% of all usernames blocked at UAA are blocked because they match a company or group. The issue of companies promoting themselves through Wikipedia edit histories seems a bit far-fetched, I think Pepsi would gain much more by promoting themselves through an advertising campaign than by registering an account called "Drink Pepsi" and make contributions to Wikipedia. Now, if "Drink Pepsi" engages in vandalism, he should be blocked for that, and if he adds false negative information about Coca-Cola or false positive information about Pepsi, that's a COI issue. But the current rule that prevents usernames from "matching the name of a company or group" just causes problems for newbies who choose the name of a band they like, or things like that. Almost all usernames that are blocked for matching a company would have been blocked based on their contributions (COI or vandalistic) anyway. Is he back? 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree with you, at heart, about how misguided most of the username rules are, but fuming about it won't build a consensus to change the policy. (A consensus to change the policy is much harder to find than a consensus that policy needs to be changed, as anyone who frequents RfA knows.) This is why I'm supporting Mangojuice's proposal. It does have a couple of parts that I don't like, such as when it says that "being exceptionally confusing" to someone is an example of misusing a username, but on the whole it's a vast improvement over what we've got. The most important change is that it focuses on reasons that you would need to block a username rather than categories of names that should be blocked just because the policy says so. Maybe in the future we can talk about those reasons and find a consensus to stop placing preemptive blocks, but let's take one step at a time. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand, I strongly support a rewriting of the username policy based on Mangojuice's proposal, but just wanted to point out some parts of it that I would suggest be amended. My concern is particularly with the "promotional" category, which is (IMO) seriously overused. As an example, the account "Jenny20" was reported at WP:UAA because it matched a small company's phone number. I therefore think we should consider the wording of the new username policy to address this problem. Of course, the biggest problem is that Twinkle and the culture at UAA are encouraging "username patrol", where people are reporting names on more and more flimsy grounds. Is he back? 15:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. In fact, I wonder how I read your statement as disagreeing with Mangojuice's proposal in the first place.

Also, I observe that even the culture at UAA is fed up with TWINKLE now. This doesn't have to go in the proposed policy, but I'd suggest that if the policy gets implemented and we need to redesign UAA, we should simply disallow TWINKLE reports. Of course, we'd leave open the possibility of allowing them again, but AzaToth would have to be willing to talk to us about a less misleading interface, which he hasn't been so far. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Overlap of username policy and signature guidelines

I notice that coverage of issues such as use of non-Latin and unicode characters is split between the current username policy, the signature guidelines and Help:Preferences. I wonder how it could be improved. There seems to be a lot of duplicated content with slightly different presentations in each case and a degree of inconsistency. Has anybody else noticed it? I think it could even be a bit confusing and overwhelming for newcomers (the prose is very long and dense). Is it something we could address as part of revising and updating the username policy? - Neparis 02:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume it's only there because of cognitive dissonance. When the username policy was enforced in a way that blocked every username that confused a username reviewer in the slightest, yet they found out they had to allow non-Latin names, they responded by creating a pile of rules about how to use non-Latin names. I think the proper solution is to remove the instruction creep and chill out. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy document exists to give guidance to users choosing names as well as to admins blocking (or not blocking) them. I suspect that it needs to say "non-english-language/non-latin names are explicitly allowed, although users choosing these names should be aware of some additional concerns, see some-other-page-not-sure-which". SamBC(talk) 12:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, non English usernames are a waste of time, even if redirects with English characters are created. In order to make changes to the policy, thorough consensus would have to be determined. Qst 17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal tastes, whether to allow non-English usernames isn't an issue for the English Wikipedia to decide. It has been decided by the developers that usernames must be portable between different projects, many of which are in other languages. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A more moderate proposal

So I think the proposal I put forward gained some partial support but where it lacked support was primarily in that it went 100% towards treating username blocks as conduct issues, when others take the view that sometimes username blocks are not conduct blocks. I maintain the strong opinion that at least most of the time, username blocks should be conduct-related (even if the conduct was an honest mistake). So here's a different idea; the following is a list of changes I think are good ideas that don't go as far as the proposal. Also, the ideas are separate; once I get an idea what people like and don't like, I can make a draft that fits. Here are the changes:

1. Remove the "detailed examples" section. Rationale: most of the examples are either obvious and don't need mentioning, or have the serious potential to be misapplied. Also, since the 5 top-level reasons are the main thing anyway, the examples have been deprecated for a while now. All they are doing is supplying questionable "reasons" for WP:TW username reports. The exception: the ones under "misleading" do probably need to be spelled out specifically; those are hard to guess.
2. Bad idea usernames. Add the paragraph at User:Mangojuice/IU#Bad idea usernames. Rationale: if a username causes only minor trouble or no trouble to users other than the user with the name in question, we should not be forcing a change, in the interests of welcoming our volunteers and not biting the newbies.
3. Preemptive username blocks. Mention the practice of preemptively blocking users when we have good reason to believe they are here to cause trouble: trolling usernames, vandal pattern usernames, et cetera. Mention the distinction between this kind of block and an ordinary "inappropriate username" block: we should not mix the two up, because of WP:AGF.
4. Conduct-related disallowal. Mention that any block for a user's behavior can be extended to an indefinite block if the blocking admin feels that the user's choice of username is contributing to the problematic behavior; specifically mention WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:CIV/WP:NPA as examples. Such blocks are meant to, in addition to blocking the user, to disallow their username. We should make a new template for this kind of thing.
5. Wording of "offensive usernames." Offensive usernames that are blockable should "be expected to make harmonious editing nearly impossible." This is stronger wording that the current "likely to make harmonious editing difficult or impossible." Rationale: let's back off. A name that's only offensive enough to make it "likely" to make editing "difficult" is probably not offensive enough to deserve outright disallowing.
6. Wording of "promotional usernames." Add a requirement that the account be used to promote the company/group. Rationale: If they don't promote anything, it's really no big deal. Companies may have legitimate editing purposes on Wikipedia (e.g. keeping articles on their company free of libel/defamation, and accurate) and WP:COI allows for editing with a conflict of interest, within narrow guidelines.

I think of points 3 and 4 as uncontroversial, merely additional documentation that already describes common practice. 2 is my favorite part of my previous proposal; I also think this meets the spirit of what Ryan proposed at #Overhaul. Points 1, 5, and 6 are the big changes. Comments? Mangojuice^talk 04:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would support all of these. I'd like to draw particular attention to #6, because it corrects a situation where our current policy is arbitrary and nonsensical. It makes no sense that we ask people with names that state their potential conflicts of interest up front to disguise themselves. It also makes no sense to consider an e-mail address "promotional" instead of simply a bad idea. What can you promote with an e-mail address besides getting yourself spammed? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In terms of #6, doesn't a company-based username create other problems? It's supposed to be a single person per account right, with special dispensation for the one single group account (I remember reading this somewhere). So User:Taco Bell's edits might appear to be representative of the company as a whole, or a company account, not an individual fan. However, I think some modification to this section is appropriate, and certainly we can't fault users for being up-front about potential COI. And a user's name which mentions a company but doesn't appear to BE the company or a company account should be fine, like User:TacoBellisYummy or User:JoeTacoBell or something like that. Potential COI shouldn't be a reason for blocking, wait til edit is ok for dealing with that issue. But if a username purports to be a representative of a company, or the company itself, I think that's still problematic. My concerns about notable company names are similar to that of celebrity names, more misleading than promotional. Perhaps company names could be added to misleading and removed from promotional? And yeah, not sure where the email-as-username fits in with that. ~Eliz81^(C) 08:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We should probably make it clearer that accounts are for individuals, not groups. However, even when someone picks a name that sounds like they are a group, we don't typically block for that unless it actually seems that a group is using the account. Also, on the misleading thing: I would have a problem with someone claiming to be an official representative of a company if that wasn't true. But merely using the company's name as their username doesn't imply that. Also, I just don't see the same potential for abuse: no one would think that User:Taco Bell is Taco Bell, whereas people might think that User:Britney Spears is Britney Spears. Mangojuice^talk 14:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Most accounts named after a group are used by a single person (such as a communications officer for a company). Sometimes these accounts cause a conflict of interest and get blocked. Other times, they carefully discuss and correct misinformation, the way they're supposed to. It's an extreme assumption of bad faith to block them. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

"Extreme assumption of bad faith" is a little strong wording, rspeer. I never said that company usernames were intentionally created to mislead or harm the encyclopedia. But by their very nature, they are misleading, in that they imply that a corporation and not an individual is behind the edits. I do not share Mangojuice's assurance that notable company names aren't misleading and confusing. But yes, making it clearer in the first place that accounts are for individuals would help. I support changes which will prevent problematic usernames from being created by well meaning users by making our guidelines clearer up front, instead of UAA or RFCN or a later process dealing with it. (I haven't thought about the other proposed points, but I'll comment on them too.)

To get consensus on these proposals, we need to hear from many, many more voices. We can do our part to encourage this participation by treating all users and their ideas with respect, by observing WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL even more carefully. Discussion is notoriously difficult and treacherous in this medium already. Let's make absolutely sure in our noble quest to reform this policy that no one is inadvertently attacked or intimidated. Let's be sure not to label other users' ideas as "ridiculous" or with other such unnecessarily harsh language. Just some words of encouragement for our constructive dialogue, and I do hope to see more editors of all opinions commenting on this proposal. ~Eliz81^(C) 18:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, my wording was a bit strong. But that wasn't directed at you, by the way; ever since I encountered it a few months ago, the username policy (and the conventions that have grown around enforcing it) has struck me as extreme (as in, much more restrictive than nearly anywhere else on the Internet) and involving frequent assumptions of bad faith.

Back on this topic, I don't consider group names particularly misleading unless they're used for impersonation. If they make you think the views of one Wikipedia editor within a company represent the views of the company, that's bad for the company, not for Wikipedia. They tend to have big legal disclaimers that try to avoid that kind of thing. The only group names we need to avoid are things which are trying to advertise their very existence, like an SEO company run out of someone's basement. Yes, sometimes it's hard to tell, but the old policy was applied too broadly -- I don't think the United Nations Evaluation Group had any malicious intent, for example.

Despite my strong wording, I don't consider this one of the more important parts of the policy. I only said "extreme" because dealing with minor problems by blocking always strikes me as extreme. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, more broadly about the proposal. I especially like point 4, and upon further clarification of that, I will support points 2-5. For example, offensive usernames. For the blatant-but-not-egregious (or "bad idea") category, would this lead to an indefinite block after a single edit of vandalism (i.e., we're tipped over the edge to assume bad faith)? Normally it would be around four edits/warnings if the username is not problematic. I don't agree with point 1, but I would support trimming down examples and placing less emphasis on them. I'm all for emphasizing conduct in blocking, but let's make sure it's clear when a username block requires an editing component and how much assuming good faith/concern about biting plays a role in blocks for each of the 5 categories. Mango, could you give some examples of non-offensive username violations that you would envision being blocked before the user edits, falling under the other 4 top-level reasons? And for point 6, I agree we need editing evidence to be a promotional/COI username, but I still think company names and those implying an official position are misleading. ~Eliz81^(C) 20:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) Bad idea names: No, the test would be whether the username is part of a problem or not. So, User:MoreGunsinSchools should not face an indef block for violating WP:3RR, but might, if they were trolling on Columbine High School massacre. (2) Examples - surely, we can lose a lot of the examples. For instance "Usernames that are attacks on specific users." are obviously disruptive, no need to mention it; while "Usernames that refer to a medical condition or disability, especially in a belittling way." is vague and unnecessary. I would like to hear which examples you and others think are essential and why. (3) Blocks before the user edits: Confusing - I have no examples, I doubt it's ever necessary at all. Misleading - User:BureaucratJoe or something like that. Disruptive - User:Mangojuiceisgay, or other obvious trolling, etc. (though point #3 could be used instead). Promotional - User:Get Vi@gara NOW!!! and save - username itself is spam. (4) Point 6 - I think, if a blocking admin shares your concern that such a username is misleading, they'll still be able to block underthe policy. My own interpretation is that I don't share that concern without any specific actions. But that isn't going to be written into the policy. Mangojuice^talk 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For examples: I think they serve an illustrative purpose for both UAA-reporting types and users with potentially bad names, so that they have concrete examples of what's ok and not ok. If we're worried about promoting nitpicky username reporting, maybe the examples could go on a different page (e.g., a friendly username guideline page directed at newbies), or we could give a few specific username examples, to convey the meaning of the 5 points, but not to act as sub-points. Since you can't think of confusing usernames offhand, I think it's even more important to have some examples. And thanks for the clarification about point 4, but could you say how vandalism might fit in, if at all? ~Eliz81^(C) 22:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's how I would interpret vandalism as it relates to point 4. If someone was vandalizing and had a name like "Poopmeister" or such, where you can strongly suspect that they are here for no good, I would indef-block in pretty short order; probably about when I would issue a first vandalism block. Mangojuice^talk 01:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I presume you mean first vandalism warning, not block? If so, I agree, and support 2-5, with openness to some of the spirit of 1 and 6 if tweaked. Seems like a good way to deal with less egregiously offensive names. And maybe it'll help deter the username creation trolls. ~Eliz81^(C) 02:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean block, but that doesn't mean I would necessarily wait for warnings first. Mangojuice^talk 11:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with spammers and accounts is a greater issue than just the username policy. Our current policy on role accounts is that the only one allowed is Schwartz PR. We are getting hundreds of spammers a day making spam articles about themselves and using their user pages as adverts. I don't think being nice to them is the way forward. However our current policy that says we get them to rename is also broken - we don't want spammers even if they are pretending not to be. Secretlondon 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with spammers is the pages they create about their products, not their usernames. Unless they're going around making tiny edits everywhere with a name such as "b3stRX - www.example.com". Dan Beale-Cocks 21:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should continue to disallow role accounts. But preemptive blocks on users because their username vaguely implies they might be role accounts aren't the right way to disallow them. It's also not a particularly urgent issue, compared to more easily-detectable problems like COI and spam. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Mangojuice for this - it looks good and I certainly support it. --Ryan Postlethwaite 11:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I also support these changes, and I add something for consideration in a separate subsection below. NikoSilver 13:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cherry topping

How about we never block anyone for just their name? How? Simply, with the help of the developers, to introduce a forced name change procedure, to temporary numbered generic usernames (e.g. "User:Temp00001", "User:Temp00002" etc), and this to be able to be done by admins also (aside from bureaucrats whose increased status secures mostly that the new username requested in WP:CHU is not taken or otherwise offensive -which can never be the case for a standard automatic temp name). The help of the developers is only needed so that the automated procedure is programmed, so that it can be done by admins, and so that the user in question be able to login under their previous login and password, and be able to see a boilerplate on top of their screen to warn them of the change (hell, if it can be done for donations to WP, it certainly can be done for those users too). This way, we let the "bad" username holder login without penalizing them, and we also prevent their "bad" username from polluting our history pages. Thoughts? NikoSilver 13:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I would only support that in extreme cases, like if someone put another person's personal information in their username. If we do it too often, people will just end up using those temp names to edit, which would be bad because that would be very confusing. Mangojuice^talk 13:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably I didn't stress "temporary" too much. I mean with a date of expiry (maybe related to their first subsequent edit also), after which it is blocked, much like we do now. NikoSilver 14:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting proposal, but I can't imagine that it would help in enough cases to justify the extra process. Also, it's DOA because it requires the developers to make a big change to possibly benefit one small aspect of Wikipedia. There simply aren't enough developers. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a good idea, we could reserve username blocks for bad faith users only and rename the rest. However it will add to the 'crat backlog. 1 != 2 00:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Username warnings?

Mangojuice, I notice that your proposal outline does not mention username warnings anywhere in it. Do you intend for "disallow" to mean "block", or do you intend it to mean "warn or block as appropriate"?

I would actually be okay with phasing out username warnings, as long as the policy is written so that it only covers names that actually need to be blocked. For example, if something about "confusing usernames" comes back into the policy, I would insist on keeping username warnings around, as most usernames deemed "confusing" are not so intolerable that they need to be blocked. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My "disallow" is intended to mean that a user is told that their name is not acceptable and that they must stop using it or change it (similar wording to the current {{usernameblock}} message). Such a message may or may not be accompanied by a block, based on the circumstance; if there is no block initially, one may be applied later if the user doesn't comply. Mangojuice^talk 15:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly inappropriete names

I recently received a notice questioning the point in reporting usernames that never had edited [1]. From my understanding, there wouldn't be any point in reporting borderline names, but names that are totally unacceptable get blocked on sight regardless of edits[2] [3] [4], etc. It also doesn't state that the accounts have to have edited on WP:UAA. So what I'm asking is if an account never made an edit, and the name is totally unacceptable, should I not report it?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 03:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with those reports is that the names are old usernames that have never edited and are never going to. The point of a block is to prevent someone from continuing to edit; if they're not going to edit anyway, why draw attention to their despicable name by requesting a block? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You make excellent points. Blocks are to prevent, not to punish. And two, it's important to deny recognition. I now understand why not to report any username under these circumstances.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 03:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was looking for DENY but forgot the name of it. That's very useful to refer to.

Incidentally, I'd like to clarify a part of this that I think affects the reform discussion above. Although the purpose of a block is to prevent and not to punish, new users don't know that. Any newbie who sees a big red box that says "You have been blocked from editing" will interpret it as a punishment. This is a big part of the reason we need to be careful with blocking. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I see no harm in these reports and the potential to prevent sleeper accounts being used later to edit semi-protected articles with racist names. Good job, keep it up as far as I am concerned. If it is decided that these reports should not be reported here, I will make a subpage in my userpsace where you can report them. 1 != 2 00:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, really, deny recognition. Don't make a Racist Username Hall of Fame in your userspace. I don't think the problem you're hypothesizing actually exists, as an attention-getting username would kind of defeat the purpose of a sleeper account. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus seems pretty clear to me. Care to make a note regarding this matter on WP:U#Inappropriate usernames?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 22:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the extra instructions are particularly necessary, as this is covered enough by other policies like WP:DENY. Also, we're talking about replacing IU anyway. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There already exists a Hall of Fame for [usernames editors have expressed concern over]. I'm not sure how useful this is. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

English user name does not work for the Chinese version of Wikepedia??

Hi there, does anyone here know why my English user name does not work when I try to edit the Chinese version of Wikipedia? I wanted to insert a {{cn}} sign but couldn't do it because the system does not recognized my English account. In other words, I couldn't log in and the entry I was trying to edit, because it is semi-protected, requires users to log in.

Thank you for your explanation in advance. Arctura 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you register your name on the Chinese Wikipedia? Although some developers are talking about unifying usernames across all Wikipedias (the idea of which I support, though I think their implementation will cause serious problems), right now you have to register separately on every project. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy answer. I am new to Wikipedia and I incorrectly assumed that all versions of Wikepedia is run by the same organization. Thank you for clarifying this. :) Arctura 02:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Antonio.sierra ---> Hamsterpoop

I want to change my username from Antonio.sierra to Hamsterpoop to avoid using my real name and to have the same username on all Wikimedia projects. I have never received a warning for conduct problems (or any other type of warning) and have edited the english Wikipedia since July 2006. This rename would make it a lot easier for myself to work on various Wikimedia projects (in both english and spanish) i.e. wikipedia, wikisource, wikibooks, wikiquote, etc. I proposed this on WP:RENAME but was denied because it was apparently offensive. I believe this was a misinterpretation of the username policy by following the literal rules and examples, and missing the meaning and spirit of said policy. The username is not offensive to anybody. In the argument I cited references to WP:IU, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:BURO, etc. The reason I'm here, talking about this, is that I want see if the same conclusion that was reached by the bureaucrat (I'm not renaming you to something with poop in. We routinely block usernames with poop in. Come up with a better name if you want to be renamed.) is reached by consensus. Thanks. --Xer0 22:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCN might be a better venue for this. --Deskana (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have moved this discussion to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names --Xer0 23:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Free hell

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please take this to WP:AN, WP:AN/I or the blocking admins talk page. This isn't the place to discuss blocks that have already been made. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that wikipedia is not censored, and that the word "hell" is not obscene. So was the admin who blocked this user for violating username policy acting appropriately? - Michael J Swassing (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Take it up with the blocking admin. Mangojuice^talk 12:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I too, do not see a problem with the username in question, if I can be of any help to this situation, please tell me. —Qst 13:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, once a username has been blocked, the damage is pretty much done. Now it's a question of giving the admin input on their decision. Mangojuice^talk 15:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that strikes me as an incredibly inappropriate block. I'll wait to see what User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry says in response. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss this. If discussion with the blocking administrator does not yield a satisfactory response, then a discussion on an admin noticeboard should be initiated. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the policy for usernames, nor the history of the evolution of the consensus in discussions, and it occurred to me that asking about the general consensus on the policy discussion page might be a good place to start. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry chaps. I've been drifting in and out of conciousness for the past few days, and I'm not out of the woods yet! The username was reported for being in appropriate, "potentially offensive to members of a religion" or the like. I was unsure, but seeing as another user had reported the username as inappropriate, I took it as read that he found it offensive and had a decent reason for reporting it. I don't find it insulting at all, but I'm an avowed atheist, so I'm not likely to! Rather than faff around with potentially offensive usernames, I thought it best to block outright. Feel free to overturn it if you have a rounder understanding of religion than me, and you feel it's not offensive to anyone. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There's really no point in overturning username blocks -- if that was a legitimate user, the damage is done already. Maybe they even went to the effort of getting a new name. But this is why the UAA process is supposed to be for obvious cases. If it takes a round understanding of religion to figure out whether or not it's offensive, it's not obvious. The kinds of users who scan the new username list and report names to UAA are also not the most reliable authority: often, they're just digging for names that look slightly wrong so that they can feel accomplished.

In this particular case, I'd also point out that Wikipedia is not censored. If someone is offended by the word "hell", they'll probably find a lot more to offend them on Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unnecessary wording?

This sentence

Role accounts for the purposes of conducting public relations or marketing via the encyclopedia are strongly discouraged and will be blocked for violations of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines.

seems not only unnecessary but also incorrect - we don't block shared accounts because of COI, we block them because that's part of how we establish legal liability - our editors are individuals. In other words, we don't need to explain further, or justify further, what we do in some specific cases when we block accounts; we have our policy, period.

I suggest removing the above sentence, since another sentence, above it, seems complete: For reasons of attribution and accountability, you are not allowed to share your account or password with others. If you do, and this becomes known, your account will be blocked. Why say more? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I've been bold and removed the wording myself. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

borderline cases

I'm working on a draft for the revamp as discussed above, incorporating all 6 points as they were mostly supported. However, I think there are some further issues that need discussing. First of all, I was trying to write the "how to report" instructions. "Clear" violations can be reported to WP:UAA. I interpret "clear" there to mean it should be clear there is a violation, once things are explained (i.e., I might not notice what User:P3/V15 is until someone explains it). However, with the addition of the "bad idea username" concept, I am a little unclear how I should write the instructions for non-"clear" cases. It seems like there are two choices: the current recommendation to discuss borderline cases with the user at first and then report to WP:RFCN, or the "bad idea username" recommendation to discuss the username issue with the user and leave any decision up to them, and pursue dispute resolution only as a last resort. In my opinion, we should have the instructions treat non-"clear" cases as if they were "bad idea" usernames: my thinking is, if the person reporting username doesn't even think it's clearly a violation, then they should not have the mindset of trying to report the username and get it blocked, and instead treat the issue as something they can potentially work out with the user in question. So this brings me to my two questions. Question 1: does this sound like the right approach? If not, how can we distinguish between the discuss-then-RFCN cases and the "bad idea" cases, and how do we write those instructions. Question 2: if my approach is right, the policy may not mention WP:RFCN at all. So, in that case, what is RFCN for? And Question 3: I'd like to add a principle to the policy that blocking borderline usernames is unimportant and possibly harmful. The reasoning -- the more borderline a username, the less damage it causes, and also, the more likelihood that it belongs to a potentially valuable contributor and the more likely that that contributor would be justifiably upset if they were blocked. Mangojuice^talk 19:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read the revision, and I approve.

I think there is a place for RFCN, although a well-written username policy greatly decreases the need for it. People may be uncomfortable with supporting a policy that removes RFCN entirely and directs borderline username issues to the black hole of dispute resolution. If a borderline username continues to bother people, I believe RFCN is the correct place for it to end up, so people can discuss it in the open. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the being bold and making the change, but I have the feeling if we tried to bring this new version to the attention of UAA regulars or (shudder) TWINKLE, they'd just come back and revert it. Should we bring up the new version on the village pump and look for community approval? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. I first started making my proposals in mid-September, and there has been a wide range of feedback since then. The policy has been marked with "under discussion" for a long time. Additional attention has been drawn from the RFCN 2nd MFD as well. And in the end, this isn't that big a change. Mangojuice^talk 05:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm just being pessimistic, having seen many cases where Wikipedians are reactionary for no reason. I agree that anyone who cares about the username policy has seen this discussion linked to many times, and the discussion has only been positive, so maybe that's the best indicator of consensus we'd have without taking an Evil Poll.

What I'm most pessimistic about is bringing up the new policy with AzaToth, writer of TWINKLE, who seems to have a love for the pre-summer interpretation of the policy. (The interpretation I am referring to was not really written down, but wildly extrapolated from the policy: "You should block people for any of these 15-ish reasons". TWINKLE still assumes this interpretation.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that's a separate dispute. I have been pondering an MfD for a while as a means to get rid of the misguided inclusion of Twinkle username reporting; I brought AzaToth evidence of lots of people who question Twinkle username reporting but his response was basically completely dismissive. Mangojuice^talk 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As in, delete UAA and propose a replacement that wouldn't have bot or TWINKLE reports on it? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, no! UAA is a fine system for handling username reports. I would MfD one of the Twinkle script subpages itself. But this is premature: AzaToth indicated to me last time around that the examples still being in the policy was what made him not want to change things. I would rather let this be for a while, and if it becomes clear the examples are going to stay gone, I'll talk to him again. No need to escalate without discussing first. Mangojuice^talk 03:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Name of organization

I am just wondering if someone could tell me if someone has a name, such as the name of an organization, and they are not a member or representative of that organization, if they are allowed to posses a username that implies that they are, in fact, that organization. I believe that this isn't allowed, but please rectify me if I'm wrong. --Μ79_Šp€çíá∫횆^{tell me about it} 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Documentation of "severe harassment (of editors) inside and outside of Wikipedia"?

I'm considering changing my username to be my real name. The article says, "Wikipedia editors have been subject to severe harassment inside and outside of Wikipedia," and this seems an important consideration, but I am not readily able to find any discussion of such severe harassment. Is there some history documented somewhere to which that sentence could link, so users could make informed decisions? I see it as likely that what someone considers "severe harassment" is behaviour I could take in stride, as that I have no conception how bad things have gotten for others (e.g. I don't really need my kneecaps bashed in). —Christian Campbell 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why was my account deleted?

On Friday, December 7, 2007, I found my account on Wikipedia was no longer there. I had to create it again. Why was the account deleted? tharkun860 (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What was the account? Accounts can't be deleted but things are case-sensitive. You can try a search at Special:Listusers if you can remember your username, to see if the account still exists. Accounts can be renamed without your permission (see Wikipedia:Usurpation) but only, pretty much, for unused accounts. Mangojuice^talk 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're confused between your account being deleted and having to log back in. You weren't deleted, as evidenced by the fact that you're posting and Special:Contributions/Tharkun860 shows all your edits, including this one. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Now that you say it it's obvious. Tharkun860 - you have contributions on this account dating back over 2 years. Surely, you just had to log in again. Mangojuice^talk 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Unknown vs. Known companies

(Regarding Until's change). Obviously, well-known companies aren't allowed to promote themselves either. I do think there's a difference in presumption, though, between User:North Street Hair Salon, whose mere username is an attempt to draw visibility to the company, and User:Microsoft, where the username will clearly make no real difference to Microsoft's visibility. Of course, User:Microsoft would still be thought to have a conflict of interest on Microsoft-related topics and scrutinized. If there's a good way of mentioning this distinction without making it sound like well-known companies get a free pass, I'd prefer that. But then, it may be too minor a point to be worth discussing on the page. Mangojuice^talk 16:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't disallow advertising because we don't want the companies to benefit, we disallow it because it is harmful to Wikipedia. I don't really see this distinction. Major companies do participate in the lowest level advertising. It could be argued the a Pepsi t-shirt is going to have a negligible effect, but it is still advertising. I would block User:Microsoft on sight for having a promotional username, I can't see how the companies success would negate that. 1 != 2 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Also in addition to me not seeing the point of the distinction, I also do not see an objective way to make that distinction. 1 != 2 16:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The concern with allowing User:Microsoft to edit is that it appears that the user is editing in an official position on behalf of microsoft and his comments could be taken as such. It has the posibility to have real world consequences for both microsoft and wikipedia if User:Microsoft says the wrong thing. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's leave the paragraph as Until wrote it. We may have different points of view on some things (lots) but in the end, "User:Microsoft" is not a good username either, not only because of the potential (minor) promotion issue but also because of the whole group/role account thing, and whether they really represent Microsoft or not, etc. I think we agree it's not as bad as something like User:North Street Hair Salon, but the paragraph is there to discourage this kind of username from being chosen so it should apply to all. Although, I do wonder whether even having that paragraph violates WP:BEANS -- aren't we effectively telling people to spam more intelligently? Mangojuice^talk 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

By blocking one means of promotion it is possible they may get more sneaky. However, if they are really determined they will likely get their url on the blacklist for their troubles. 1 != 2 19:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. I sort of think it's easier to enforce if they do make usernames that match their company, create an article, and then they get blocked and it gets deleted and watchlisted. If they were to follow the instructions here it would make it harder for us. Not that they can't be stopped then, it's just more work. Mangojuice^talk 01:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but even if the person is not exhibiting a COI, the username itself is still promotional. 1 != 2 01:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If a company makes an account in their name and seems to be otherwise following the rules of Wikipedia, we shouldn't insta-block them. That's counterproductive. The promotional effect of a username is negligible compared to the ill will toward Wikipedia these blocks create. Companies need to get the message that they can work with Wikipedia (disclosing their COI and correcting misinformation, with talk page discussions), not that they have to hide themselves and work against it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Rspeer, Wikipedia has never ever tolerated advertising, why on Earth should we start allowing it with usernames? We are an encyclopedia, not a billboard. 1 != 2 06:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to climb back up this slippery slope. If I don't identify the different assumptions we are working with, we will keep talking past each other.

• You consider putting a name -- not a slogan or link, just a name -- in a Wikipedia page history to be an effective form of advertising. I consider it to be laughably bad when considered as a form of advertising, especially given its propensity to backfire.
• You consider the appropriate response to a potential conflict of interest -- one that is declared up front, even -- to be an indefinite block. I would use indefinite blocks only in cases where the user clearly intends to abuse Wikipedia.

To sum up, I find indefinite blocks in the non-abusive cases counterproductive, for the reasons I've described in the previous comment, and I also consider them to be a solution looking for a problem. Could you respond to my explanation above instead of caricaturing it as making Wikipedia a "billboard"? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said "effective", I said it was advertising. Wikipedia does not care how effective the advertising is, they care about the negative effect it has on the creation of an encyclopedia. Nobody wants brand names tacked all over the histories. I also never said a thing about conflict of interest, it is not relevant. A block for COI should always come after a failure to resolve the issue. However a username that itself is a form of advertisement needs to be prevented from editing because each signature and each item in the history is an advert.

You keep saying indefinite block like we are banning these people. It is a block on the username and they are welcome to request an unblock to change or to just create a new account. We are not blocking people but names. 1 != 2 16:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. At a certain level, advertising that is so completely ineffective and unobtrusive becomes not advertising anymore. That's what we're saying. You'll note that we have not been advertising Microsoft in this conversation although we keep saying "Microsoft" over and over again. Mangojuice^talk 16:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that something ceases to be advertising when it stops being effective. How effective an advert is does not effect Wikipedia, the advert itself does. 1 != 2 16:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Username length

How long does a username have to be before it becomes unacceptable (presuming long usernames are unacceptable)? I would personally suggest 20-25, or somewhere there abouts, but ideally I need some feedback before going ahead and editing WP policy. Thanks. I Enjoy Commenting (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Long usernames are slightly irritating to other people, but really don't cause any problems beyond that. So, if someone has a username that's too long, it should be thought of as a "bad idea" username. Now, if the username is exceptionally confusing, it might be inappropriate. That said, I think there's a software limit of about 64 characters, so there is some limit. Mangojuice^talk 18:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right about the limit, but the fact is, you can, according to the current policy, reach that limit if you want to: it's not considered a nuisance. For example, you could have the username "IThinkVeryLongNamesAreRatherAnnoyingAndAreConfusingAndMisleading", which, though not offensive, and though it fulfills all current criteria, might make it more difficult to communicate with or, if necessary, take action against the user than, say, "Jimbo Wales". Yes, people might want longer usernames, but they're unnecessary and misleading. You only have to change one letter and you've got a far more confusing doppelganger. Who would notice the difference between "IThinkVeryLongNamesAreRatherAnnoyingAndAreConfusingAndMisleading" and "IThinkVeryLongNamesAreRetherAnnoyingAndAreConfusingAndMisleading", or even just "lThinkVeryLongNamesAreRatherAnnoyingAndAreConfusingAndMisleading" (the first letter is a lowercase L, not an uppercase I)? It's as much a problem for other editors as for the user themselves. And now look how long this message has got with that one username! BTW, sorry if I sound like I'm ranting (which I think I do). I'm just in a hurry and I can't really be bothered to reword it all nicely. Thanks for your reply anyway. WP:AGF. I Enjoy Commenting (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said, slightly irritating. If there is some reason to believe they're mimicing another user or creating multiple similar-looking account names to try to avoid scrutiny, there's a different problem. But people can do that without making long names, so we have a separate rule for it. I'm more concerned about the case where someone registered a name about 40 characters long that happened to be his real name (Polish, with a middle name included) and it was blocked because of a poorly thought-out rule. And in the end, we should be lenient here because poor blocks are a lot more damaging than poor decisions not to block. Mangojuice^talk 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason for us to enforce limits on username length with blocks. If we want to disallow usernames over a certain length, we can do it the right way, in software, instead of by blocking people. And we already do this, but those who feel particularly inconvenienced by 64-character usernames should try asking the developers on MediaZilla for it to be lowered. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We cannot do it with software because it is not the length, but the level of confusion that is at issue. While computers can measure length they cannot tell how confusing something is. 1 != 2 16:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you really mean it when you say "it is not the length, but the level of confusion that is at issue" -- if you mean that the length of the username is independent of whether it should be blocked -- then I would agree. That's why I say that length should only be enforced by software, and not be part of the policy. Then we just need to establish what kinds of names should actually be labeled as "so confusing they should be blocked", and we can stop conflating the issue with length.

Unfortunately, I find this kind of block is not placed due to "undue confusion", but simply because some names are "annoying", which is even what I Enjoy Commenting admitted in his complaint about long names. (He also called them "misleading", though, which makes no sense.) Username blocks are the only place on Wikipedia where admins get to hand out blocks for things which mildly annoy them personally. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to rspeer for not explaining what I meant. By 'misleading', I simply mean that they can very easily become difficult to 'handle' as such, when trying to type someone's username in or write something to/about them. Presuming you don't just use Copy+Paste, which seems much simpler. And I totally agree with you that this isn't something we can really put exact boundaries on; for example, if your username is something everyone is familiar with, like the first line of the national anthem, then, from a 'confusability' PoV, I'm fine with that (though some people might be put out that their anthem is being used in that way). I know I'm not making myself clear, but long and unfamiliar usernames can, in my experience, become very difficult to deal with (though you may point out that my account is relatively new, I have been editing Wikipedia, under different usernames, for a very long time. It's just that, after not logging in for a while, I forget my password, and I never seem to get round to putting in my email address while I can still log in. That's part of my problem with long usernames: I, presumably like many others, don't have a knack for this kind of thing, and so typing things in becomes much more difficult).

Anyway, I think it would be useful to set up some sort of guideline on username length, something that will help define what a "confusing" username really is, and whether length plays any part in that. I'm not suggesting we should ban accounts just because usernames are long, but simply that we should clear up how long a username should ideally be, so, while people can still have long usernames, they might think twice about choosing one... just to help out people like me :-) I Enjoy Commenting (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There will always be usernames on Wikipedia that are difficult to type: think about non-Latin usernames such as User:المستهلك. It's hard to get more confusing than that, for monolingual English speakers at least, but we clearly allow them. But then, there are hardly any situations where you have to type a username manually. If you're trying to get to their user page, you click on the link in their signature. If you're trying to get there from someplace without wikilinks (say, a log message), you can copy and paste. And if you're just trying to talk to or about them, you can abbreviate their name.

That said, I think it would be helpful to have some sort of guideline about what kinds of usernames are annoying. It should be outside of the username policy, though. Things written in the policy, I've observed, tend to creep from examples to guidelines to rules to insta-blocks. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some usernames are very long and therefore cause problems. But the way long usernames are handled, with the user being allowed to start editing and then suddenly getting blocked afterwards with the message "the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long or confusing, be too similar to an existing user, contain the name of an organization or website, refer to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace, or be otherwise inappropriate", is not at all optimal IMO.

I think the best course of action would be to come to a consensus on what should be the maximum length allowed for a username. When we agree on a max length, we add functionality to MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist to block names longer than that length, and change MediaWiki:Blacklistedusernametext to note the maximum length in the disallowal message. This is much less biting to the newcomers. If someone registers a name that is too long, the registration will be disallowed with a message saying names over x characters are disallowed, and the user can immediately choose another name.

What happens with the current system is that some long names are blocked immediately, some are blocked after the user has already made contributions, and some are not blocked at all. And the max length is decided individually by each admin making username blocks. This is very biting and much more discouraging than just being told the name is too long right away. Imagine if Yahoo Mail let you register an e-mail address with a very long username, and then let you send some e-mails for a few days, then shut down your account after you had already told your family and friends about your new e-mail address. Is he back? (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems like the right solution, if there is a problem that needs solving. I'm not sure what the right limit is, but it would help if I had a better idea why people object to a long username at all. Why? The only thing I can think of is that it causes some lines in the history tab to wrap around, which makes it a little harder to read. Unless someone has some bizarre resolution or font settings, though, it shouldn't prohibit any necessary function. And the lines are going to wrap around anyway because of long edit summaries. It may be hard to type out a long name but it's no different for a short name, and typing in usernames is not a great way of finding people anyway and not a critical thing: go off their signatures or the history tab.. as Rspeer pointed out some people use nonstandard characters which are going to be a major pain for anyone to try to type. It may be hard to tell very similar long names apart but it's also hard to tell very similar short names apart, and we have rules against similar names anyway, that would seem to take care of that objection. Is there any other reason long names might be objectionable? Mangojuice^talk 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Identifying long names can pick up rants that are missed by other tests. However if we idenify a name as a long name people will block it as they are being told that they should do so. Alter the bot wording? Secretlondon (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think a change in wording will help. People do UAA on autopilot anyway, they don't stop to read things in case they've changed.

Really, it isn't the bot's job to identify potential "rants" for us. These kind of bot reports fall into a mentality of "Avoid False Negatives". In this mentality, UAA's job is to identify and block 100% of unacceptable usernames, and inadvertently blocking a few good-faith users is the price to be paid for that. After all, newbies are expendable, right?

The mentality I prefer -- and the one I consider to be suggested by Wikipedia policies such as AGF and BITE -- is "Avoid False Positives". It's most important to avoid blocking good-faith users. To make that possible, we can let a few unacceptable names slip through. So we don't need the bot to show us every name that has a slight chance of being a problem -- and that's an unattainable goal anyway.

The debate about what kinds of long names are bad is one we don't need to have. We're already talking about what names are bad, and the length of the name is largely unrelated. We can improve usability (for the reasons Is He Back gave), and also remove the need for arbitrary and conflicting admin decisions about what's "too long", by simply setting a length limit in software and not worrying about length in the username policy. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Grandfather date

"The username policy covers accepted practices and behavior in naming and operating a user account on Wikipedia for accounts created after 2006-12-08." This sentence was added in this edit by Patsw in April 2007. However, there is a typo that no one has noticed for almost a year, evident in the talk page discussion that led to the date being added to the policy; Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Archive 6#Grandfather policy refers to the date as 2005-12-08. With this, I have to ask a few questions: Which one is the typo? Given that the current state has stood as is for the last 8 months, should it stay even if a typo? Is/was there ever a consensus on such a date and its implications? Does this date actually matter; would any problems arise were this sentence to be removed or the date altered? Someguy1221 (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed that sentence; apart from anything else, as written it would exempt accounts older than that date from the whole policy, including the stuff about multiple accounts, which is obviously not the case – Gurch 13:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Detailed examples" were removed

Why was this section removed? It makes it more clear for new users and others just precisely what an inappropriate username actually is.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I also thought the previous layout was more clear, but I cannot hold back the tide. 1 != 2 20:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Numerous people, including the creator of TWINKLE, misread the page and thought the examples were reasons to block. Good faith users were being blocked simply because their name looked kind of like one of the examples. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the examples made things less clear, because it makes it seem as if things like "profanity" or "references to a medical condition" are bad when that's not the point. Most of this was probably due to Twinkle, but if the only way to get people to read and understand the guiding principles is to remove the examples, then the examples have to go. I think we provide plenty of clear guidance on what a good username is supposed to be, so anyone who wants that information should be well served. Mangojuice^talk 05:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, after seeing the block on I come from a land down under where beer flows and men chunder, I was thinking that what is missing is the reference to "very long" user names, one example from there - Because this section was removed, this user can claim that "At best, I believe I have a borderline violation of the policies". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What's so wrong about that username that it needs to be blocked? Dan Beale-Cocks 14:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I come from a land down under where beer flows and men chunder

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington

Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Well, it is very long even by long username standards. Then again,

Gurch

is as long as a username needs to be :) – Gurch 21:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's very long. I still don't know why a name deserves to be blocked just because of extreme length. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of "misleading"

I've added a line clarifying some main types of "misleading" that might not be obvious.

• Usernames which imply collective basis ("Military articles squad") - names with "squad", "group", "project", "team", "taskforce" give edits by that username an apparent weight which it usually does not merit. A username that suggests the weight of some "group" or "authority" is likely to be misleading.
• Usernames which imply authority ("NPOV_enforcer"), ditto, likely to mislead and imply authority.
• Usernames that mislead in other ways.

Hopefully helpful. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Good, I think the policy was made too generalized. Some more specific examples are helpful. 1 != 2 18:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There used to be dozens of such lines covering various things, which were mostly taken out and reduced to the basic four a while back. I can't recall the exact rationale, perhaps something to do with being less prescriptive here. Still, I can't see any problem with your addition – Gurch 18:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to resist the generalization of this policy, but after several weeks I just let it go. 1 != 2 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A /Examples page maybe? (Like WP:WHEEL and WP:NPOV.) And yes I agree, keep it simple :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: try this? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of a non prescriptive page to clarify the communities feelings on the more detailed areas. Good start. 1 != 2 15:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite and possible merge

I recently renamed this page and rewrote most of this policy. Initially I did this all at once and it was difficult to see from a diff what I had done, so I reverted it and re-instated it in two chunks. The part in which I actually changed stuff may be found here; I then moved a lot of stuff around, and made quite a few subsequent edits to tidy things up. I do not consider any of my changes to constitute actual policy changes, merely clarifications and rearrangements.

The following is just hypothetical at the moment, and I'm certainly not going to try it just yet, but ultimately I believe that we really only need one page to cover use of user accounts. It should be possible to merge the actual policy part of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, which is actually not that much of the page, with this policy, leave that page as an information page, and still not have this page be much bigger than it was before I rewrote it. There would be several advantages to this:

• Simplicity is good, instruction creep bad; the fewer policies the better. It would only be necessary to read one page – which, given that this page already defines sockpuppetry and states our policy on multiple accounts, would barely be longer than it is now – to see our policy on user accounts, rather than having to wade through Wikipedia:Sock puppetry picking out the bits that are actually policy.
• Contributors would be able to add to, update and otherwise modify the useful information about possible uses of sockpuppets, ways of identifying them, suggestions for legitimate uses and so on on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry without worrying that they were messing with official policy. I think that at the moment this is discouraging people from doing so; since this information is not actually policy at all, this is a bad thing.
• I feel that even those bits of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry that are policy are mostly redundant fluff. People make far too much fuss about sock puppetry, which I am convinced is at least partially responsible for its prevalence. If the policy basically stated what is stated under "Sock puppetry" on this page now, with a little extra explanation, I think that it would be just as effective; really, I can state our policy on sock puppetry in seven words: malicious use of multiple accounts is prohibited. An entire page to elaborate on variations of this is unnecessary; a single section will do nicely.

Again, none of this would involve any actual policy changes, just a change in the way policy is presented. Were it not for the fact that it would involve removal of the "policy" tag from a page, it would be no more difficult than the rewrite I have just done, but people love their tags and removing one is guaranteed to create a fuss. Gurch 21:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Sock puppetry is enough of a unique problem that I think it serves us better on its own page. There is such a thing as over simplification. 1 != 2 15:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I agree it deserves its own page. Just not necessarily its own policy – Gurch 16:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is an issue unto itself, I think it does need its own policy. Sock puppetry and other user account issues really don't have much overlap. 1 != 2 16:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of "promotional usernames"

Gurch's rewrite fixed some poor wording in the username criteria, but unfortunately he significantly changed the sense of the "promotional usernames" bullet point.

It used to say, rather redundantly, "Promotional usernames promote a company or group on Wikipedia, if the user promotes it." The last clause was there to remind editors that they should not block people for having usernames that might be used to promote, but haven't yet. A user with the name of a company, for example, should be warned about possible conflicts of interest and possibly encouraged to change their name, but should not be blocked outright unless they're already abusing their name. (If they create a new name like the block message asks them to, then they still have a COI but now we don't know about it!)

Remember that higher up in the policy it says: "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended."

Gurch changed that to "Promotional usernames appear to promote a company or group on Wikipedia, which is not allowed". This changes the sense significantly, saying that users can be blocked simply for appearing to be promotional. That's not good.

I've rewritten it to something that hopefully captures the original intent of Mangojuice's version, without the redundant wording: "Promotional usernames are used to make edits that promote a group or company on Wikipedia." rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've explained many times before why promotional usernames can be blocked without promoting a company, if it's non generic - we do it to stop spam in logs and histories and we don't want someone outside the company making edits that appear to be from the company. Promotion by editing is an editing abuse, not a username issue. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've explained many times before why instantly blocking people for promotion they might do, or for the rather ineffective "promotion" of having a company name in a history page, is unhelpful to Wikipedia. I don't think company names are exactly a great thing -- I agree with the "not recommended" wording -- but there are much more appropriate ways to deal with this besides blocks. As far as I know, this and WP:NLT are the only Wikipedia processes that use blocking as a first resort.

I am aware that there are disagreements over some parts of the username policy. What upsets me is that when people don't like the consensus policy we worked on for months, they prefer to just enforce the old version as if it never happened; they don't defend their position here until I bring it up. If you're proposing to change the "not recommended" wording, get a proposal started, but I'm against it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You keep on referring to editorial abuse - this isn't supposed to be under the scope of this policy. You seem to have decided on your own back that we are going to allow promotional usernames to edit if they don't promote. I'm sorry, but it is upto you to demonstrate consensus for something that has been widely accepted as policy for a long time. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

How can there be a "promotional username that doesn't promote"? I support blocking promotional usernames, but names that are not used to promote are not promotional.

When Mangojuice wrote this policy, he acknowledged that there are certain cases where a username has to be taken as part of a pattern of undesirable editing, because you can't tell the intent just from the username. One of these cases is promotion. There are usernames that are promotional by their very existence, but they are somewhat rare. You can tell that names that simply name a company aren't part of this class, because the policy says under "Company/group names" that we don't block simply for having a company name. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A name can be promotional in and of itself, even if they have not made an edit yet. "User:myawesomewebsite.com"(assuming such a site existed) can be blocked on sight and we don't need to wait for an edit. So I think your provision is not conducive to existing practice and reasonable prevention of promotion. I have never seen a consensus that shows otherwise either. Ryan also makes a good point about editing violations vs username violations. 1 != 2 18:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write this provision, I just reworded it. Gurch had a good reason to rewrite the previously existing text -- it was very awkwardly worded -- but he inadvertently changed the meaning.

When it comes to "conducive to existing practice", I don't think that's how policy should work. We shouldn't say "well, people don't follow this policy, we should be conducive to existing practice by changing it to what people actually do". That would result in a rather amusing username policy, looking something like this:

Usernames may be blocked for the following reasons:

• Ugly usernames offend someone's sense of aesthetics.
• Disagreeable usernames express an opinion that some Wikipedian disagrees with and wants to remove from Wikipedia.
• Mildly unpleasant usernames might bother some hypothetical person, somewhere.
• Unlucky usernames appear on the screen of a TWINKLE user.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Someone registers with a name of 'www.example.com', but doesn't make any edits - who sees this name? How do they get to see it? If WP wants to prevent url usernames it'd be easy to have that in the policy - "Don't use an URL as your username. It'll be blocked." Dan Beale-Cocks 01:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

New user accounts can be seen at special:log/newusers, whether they have edited or not. Generally usernames which are inappropriate but have not edited are not blocked unless they are blatanly offensive (personal attacks, legal threats, profanity, or whatever) – Gurch 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember that new users don't read WP:U, though. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rspeer, was it necessary to revert all of my other changes in the process of fixing that bullet point? – Gurch 02:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ack. Sorry, I must have been looking back at what changed and clicked "edit" without thinking. I think I've now put it back to what it would be if I had done it correctly and others had made their changes after me. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "conducive to existing practice", I think WP:POLICY puts it best when it says policy change comes from "The codification of general practice that already has wide consensus. These are statements of practice that document the way Wikipedia works. A single user cannot dictate what best practice is, but writing down the results of a well-used process is a good way of making policy. The easiest way to change policy is to change common practice first." 1 != 2 05:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There has not been a "wide consensus" to block more users for their usernames in a long time. There was a smallish consensus to rewrite this policy so it didn't recommend blocking in so many absurd cases. There have also been fairly wide consensuses in broader forums, like the Village Pump and MfD, that username blocks are out of control. But there's no wide consensus for more username blocks. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a few points:

• Blocks are meant to be preventative, so if a name would be promotional if it was used to edit, such as a company name or url, then a block is warranted.
  • Blocks are not, however, for things the user has not done and may not do. If a username named for a company is used to discuss incorrect factual information on the talk page of the company's article, then the username is being used to disclose a COI, not to promote, and blocking it would be a bad move. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• A block does not require an assumption of bad faith, if a user did not intent to be promotional, but had the url of his blog as his username, it is still blockable.
  • Blocks are a tool to be used in cases where they would improve Wikipedia. Blocks on good-faith users do the opposite.
  • There is nothing wrong with URLs of blogs as usernames, especially when those are the standard on many other Web sites. We rightly let User:SchuminWeb edit under the name of his web site, for example. That's his online handle, and that plus ".com" is his URL. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Blocking a username is not blocking a user, the person can request and unblock to change their name or can just create a new one. If the admin did their job there will be a polite message explaining all this.
  • The person can also go on to a more welcoming Web site and tell all their friends how hostile Wikipedia is. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Policy is descriptive of practice, not prescriptive.
  • That doesn't mean you can ignore policies that were made by consensus. If I were to block Jimbo Wales, I couldn't back it up with a "descriptive policy" saying that it's okay for Rspeer to block Jimbo because he just did. See your quote above, where descriptive policies require a wide consensus. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• No admin is required to perform a block if they don't think it is warranted.
• Anyone can request an admin action be reviewed.
• I have never seen the community decide a promotional name must edit to be blocked, nor have I seen such a block be reversed by consensus of the community.
  • The names you are talking about may not be promotional names, and in many cases (such as a company name) we can't tell until they edit.
  • Unrelatedly to the company name issue, the part of the community that cares about defending new users, including me, does not try to reverse blocks because we know there is no point. The user is gone. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

1 != 2 05:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, one point at a time. There is a long standing practice that usernames that themselves are promotional should be blocked, this consensus is evident both in long standing policy and practice. If a user has chosen a promotional username then it is not a block for something a person has not yet done, it is blocking for choosing a promotional username. A person is welcome to discuss their company, but not in their username. Blocking a promotional username does improve Wikipedia by reducing promotion. While you think there is nothing wrong with urls, they have really only the purpose of putting links to a website after each signature and edit, and thus are promotional. Wikipedia is not a place to come to get hits on your webpage.

Yes a person can move on if they encounter one of our rules and don't like it. They same person may move on when they realize they need to cite their sources or don't like how we handle deletions. A promotional name is a name that promotes on Wikipedia, a company name has this effect regardless of motive.

We really have discussed all this over and over, and we know each others opinions. I know we disagree. So I will just make the point that there is not a consensus to change this long standing practice of blocking names that promote a company. If you think a name has been blocked that is not promotional then you can challenge the block through the blocking admin or WP:AN. 1 != 2 16:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My responses weren't just about the issue of company names and URLs, which I recognize are two (partially overlapping) gray areas. The arguments you have been using are arguments that I find very harmful when applied to all usernames, particularly the one where you say it's okay to block good-faith users. Perhaps I should focus on that point instead of the two cases of company names and URLs, and say it very simply: no, it is not okay to block good-faith users. If an unwritten Wikipedia tradition tells you that it is, that tradition is harmful and should be abandoned. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, I've been away a while, and I come back, and some good stuff has moved on in terms of the username policy, but this point is still going. I'm not sure whether to be surprised or not. Here's my take.

It's best not to block good faith users. However, it does sometimes happen that a used has a really really not good username, and is a truly good faith user. That has to be dealt with. I am confident that it's possible to use blocks in this case and make it clear that it's just the username, not the user themselves, that is being judged. I think I've even seen it done, although not through use of the templates alone. There has to be a real message on the user's talk page as well, not just a block that a user won't have any way to know has happened until they try to edit.

Thing is, I'm sure I've said all this before, and I think other people have to. It's like there's a tape-loop going on... SamBC(talk) 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

All I am arguing is that a username can be promotional even if the user with that username not edited, and that the wording "Promotional usernames are used to promote a group or company on Wikipedia" is a reasonable definition of what a promotional username is. If there is a disagreement as to if a username is promotional or not that is one thing, but I cannot see the benefit of a hard and fast rule requiring that a name edit before being promotional. It just does not mesh with the reality of the situation. 1 != 2 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally against hard and fast rules, especially of the kind "every time you see this kind of name, block it". Rules can't tell you when it's a good idea to block and when it's not. As an example that fits the current discussion, you often need to wait to see if a username is really promotional, because if you don't, you have nothing to go on but overly simplistic rules like "company name = promotion". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, a company name as a username is generally seen as promotional depending on the name itself. BravoGolfHotel, wasn't it, was a rather silly example. Similarly, any company name which could be seen as a reasonably normal phrase is probably not something to be blocked. Claiming the the set of wikipedia usernames and the set of all company and website names anywhere in the world must be disjoint is, to be frank, silly. However, names that are clearly that of a company, and there's no plausible idea that they might be used except as a reference to that company, are promotional in the eyes of a great many users, myself included. SamBC(talk) 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Another instance of this tempest in a teapot. Basically all usernames that match a company are here for illegitimate purposes and those users aren't surprised to be blocked. If there are official company representatives out there that do get blocked for this kind of reason, it's an error that can be corrected, and it's not the greatest username anyway to just match the company name (remember, they may work for the company but that doesn't mean that they and the company are one and the same, as such a username would imply, plus there's the role account issue). Despite that Until has continually espoused opinions I strongly question concerning these borderline username issues, they just don't come up very much. Mangojuice^talk 05:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)