Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Archives

• Deleted old content (mostly about a user whose name has been changed now) Martin 11:13 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC) Archive
• Deleted old content (random freedom of speech debate) 9 Feb. 2003. Archive
• Deleted old content (more freedom of speech debate, voluntary name change) 8 Oct. 2003. Archive
• Archive 1, Archive 2

It gets worse

Application of this policy is becoming even more problematic. From a discussion on my talk page, it seems that users with non-latin characters are having their user talk pages deleted even after being forced to change name because they are designated as "temporary Wikipedians" purely on the basis of not having the right sort of characters in their original name. This seems completely unjusitfiable to me. Angela. 12:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A redirect would seem the right thing to do here. Note that displaying latin characters in the signature is not enough, as one person suggested, because the edit history of pages displays the username, and that needs to be readable by all. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Usernames_containing_non-Latin_characters. Carcharoth 12:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, what is this temporary wikipedian category and who keeps applying it to pages? That really isn't neccessary. pschemp | talk 05:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The category is mainly for deleting the user pages of blocked vandal accounts after a certain period of time, but is also used for IP user pages that have unnecessary things created on them and maybe for other things too. It is part of Template:Indefblocked and a few other templates. The clearest case where this is useful is for defamatory user names that show up in Web searches, but is also relevant for simply not having extraneous results show up for normal Web searches, not "airing our dirty laundry", and cleaning up. (e.g. a search for -- Wikipedia firefox --, a probably common search considering the number of people using Google, used to come up with several ridiculous internal user page results related to User:FireFox and vandal-produced obscenities). —Centrx→talk • 06:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User name on places

Is there a policy on banning users from having a username after a name of a place? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that we don't allow usernames that are the exact names of countries, ie, User:Sweden because no one can presume to be editing for an entire country. So far, other placename are not problematic unless the user asserts that they are editing on behalf of that place. An example of what you are talking about would be helpful though. pschemp | talk 05:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Madhya Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. There was a user:TAIWAN who was blocked once before. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Change to language of "Trademarked names"

Regarding the improper use of trademarked sports team names, I would like to remove the following parenthetical language: "whether it's whole or just the team". What does that mean, exactly? Does it mean that the user name "Eagles" is just as unacceptable as the name "Philadelphia Eagles"? I would hope not. Obviously, we should prohibit the use of trademarked names, but this particular language is ambiguous and unnecessary. -- Satori Son 01:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Since I see the discussion has moved on, and there being no objections, I have removed this confusing language. -- Satori Son 19:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good start. Why not remove the whole rule? It sounds like a big non-issue. 192.75.48.150 19:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

names

Is it clear enough that the dos & donts apply to both registered usernames and names used in signatures? Deizio talk 01:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. The section WP:U#Signatures states "In general, the same rules apply for signatures as for usernames." Maybe we should remove the "In general..." qualifier; I can't think of any exception to the guideline for signatures. -- Satori Son 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we could safely tighten that up. Either remove "in general" or try "unless specified otherwise,..." Deizio talk 02:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also added the following line to the "Signatures" paragraph - "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents." Imho this section seems a lot tighter now Deizio talk 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of your changes here. Personally, I would like the "signature to resemble to some degree the username" to be mandatory, but I realize there is not yet an established consensus for such a guideline, so your wording is apt. -- Satori Son 16:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Paul Murray" vs. "Paul.Murray"

There's an established editor User:Pmurray bigpond.com to whom I suggested a namechange, but it failed because User:Paul.Murray was already occupied (an indef blocked vandal account with one edit). User:Paul Murray is still free though. Trying to avoid later trouble - this would be okay with the "can be confused with other contributors" rule? (I refuse to recognize Paul.Murray as "contributor".) Femto 12:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. As I noted on the talk page of WP:CHU, all he needs to do is place a request there and we will change it for him. Essjay (Talk) 06:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have carried out the user's request today. Redux 13:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-latin characters and Unified Login

older detailed disscusion on this issue is above at Wikipedia talk:Username #Protest--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For those of you not familiar with the upcoming "unified login" event, once this occurs, en.wp will be host to a plethora of Non-Latin Character names. This policy on non-Latin characters will therefore be a contradiction and should be removed. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 15:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For more information about Unifed Login, see m:Single login. Bastiq▼e ^demandez

That's blackmail. Waaah! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 15:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So for someone like me who cannot see foreign scripts (they just show as boxes), how will I know the difference between a name of 5 boxes, and a different name of 5 boxes? Maybe this has been discussed before. --Ali'i 15:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Errrrm, just download a good browser ? :) guillom 16:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"A good browser" can't do jack without fonts. Microsoft Windows does not come preinstalled with a set of fonts that covers the entire Unicode space. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Would be nice, but what if I happen to do most of my editing while at a public library? Or other public computer? I can't download stuff onto it. So I am stuck with boxes where foreign characters should be. --Ali'i 16:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas's opinion

I am really not supportive of any kind of policy like this. Anglo-centric? Isn't English itself Anglo-centric? English is an international language, while the others are not. As for the obvious problems this would cause, I am reiterating below from the policy page –

Names with non-Latin characters: Unfortunately, most of your fellow editors will be unable to read a name written in Cyrillic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or other scripts. Many of them will also be additionally burdened, as such names may be displayed for them only as question marks ("??? ??"), squares ("□□□ □□"), replacement characters ("??? ??") or worse, nonsense or mojibake ("Ã!%ôs*"). If your name is usually written in a non-Latin script, please consider transliterating it to avoid confusion, and allow easier access to your talk page by typing your name in the search field or URL bar.

Questions everybody should ask themselves

• Can you imagine the problem caused to administrators who want to block vandals and trolls, when their browsers do not support non-latin characters?
• Do you realise the extent of the problem of impersonation would be? Are you competent enough to distinguish between those difficult Chinese, Japanese characters? Can you understand the difference between those squiggly things that look all the same in languages like हिन्दी and العربية?
• I cannot comprehend why people who are genuinely interested in contributing to the encyclopedia would make a fuss about the issue.
• If this is an English encyclopedia, why do you give a stuff about other languages, unless you are contributing to language-related articles?
• What do you do when you need to find a particular user's talk page? Search your contributions or try to find their contributions?
• For your information, India has over 80 languages and over 6000 dialects, and mind you, fonts for a majority are available. Are you sure you want to open the pandora's box?
• For your information, I am Indian, so please assume that I do not have any kind of biases against non-English speakers and users.
  

Yours truly,
— Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 16:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is coming one way or another. As soon as single user login is implemented, anyone coming here to do transwiki links will be doing so under their home-wiki username; blocking these accounts would obviously be unreasonable. What I would suggest is that we encourage users from other language projects who intend to be editing content and participating in discussions on en: to use latin script for their signature, and to create a doppelganger account and a redirect to their userpage at the name used in their signature. --Robth^Talk 16:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's absolutely reasonable till it is restricted for those who are coming for transwiki work. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 16:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

But that doesn't have any effect on people who do not sign their names. If they are only making edits to articles, the article history could just be filled with foreign characters... I don't care about being able to tell them apart much, but the whole boxes/??? thing is more of a concern. --Ali'i 16:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you see to be the problem? Even if you have two editors in a history with the same number of boxes when you hover your cursor on the link and html is displayed you can see if they are the same editor or not. The html will be unique no matter what script is used. I am not sure what you cannot do or know because the username is indecipherable to you.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can have a requirement that the custom signature be readable, I believe custom signatures(all preferences) will be different for each wiki? This won't solve all problems, but may minimize the effects. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess we better start writing some of these articles in languages other than English to avoid the anglo-centric accusation. The policy as I understand it is based on two issues firstly that on many browsers these characters don't render properly (happens on at least one of the computers I use) coming out as little boxes or ? or some such. In article histories this is worse than meaningless. And secondly that the use of abusive names or terms can go unchecked for a long while. The former is not easily solveable and why we encourage users to use such characters in their signature where usually hovering over the link shows the underlying username and the usernames show up properly in page histories. (Though in a recent RFA there were complaints that the signature was too different from the username...). The second is also not easily soluble and single login with local blocking, may indeed make it a real issue. Personally I don't see it as unreasonable to ask people to pick a name which is legible and renders well in peoples browsers. On the question of your proposal, the way things normally seem to work is we discuss and then take action, not take action then discuss --pgk 16:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm a little snipy, but I take "Anglo-centrism" accusations to be rather snipy themselves. It's too bad that we're being Anglo-centric on the English Wikipedia. If I'm going to go create a username on Arabic Wikipedia, I won't be using characters people don't recognize. And they shouldn't do so here either. And, for that matter, to address the "get a better browser" argument (which is simply awful anyway, as many people like myself have an older computer which won't recognize any characters becuase it's not in the OS): actually, many characters are unreadable to the English reading eye anyway. I'm sorry, I can't read left-from-right in Japanese, and I don't think I should have to learn characters in Japanese, Chinese, Arabic, Hebrew, Cyrillic, and Chinese just to be able to decipher a username on Wikipedia so that someone can have the "right" to a non-readable username. There are more important things in life than making a point about Anglo-centrism. If you use English Wikipedia, use a username that can be read by English-readers. Period. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a lot in common. ^_^ — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 17:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where are you reading Anglocentric accusations on this thread? Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he was redirected from the WP:AN page. – [1]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 17:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess from your comment "not only is blocking users solely for use of non-Latin characters overly anglo-centric" on WP:AN --pgk 17:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note we are talking about people who create user 'outside of en.WP and are granted universal access to all Wikimedia wikis under that username through single user login.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This has not been implemented yet. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 17:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification. The wholesale blocking of users simply because of non-Latin characters needs to stop, now. This should be a suggestion, but not a policy. Furthermore, non-Latin usernames will be coming as a result of Unified login. So as a suggestion, it's fine, but as a policy, it's completely out of line. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the tone of "..needs to stop, now", less demands more meaningful dialog may help. The policy has a rationale perhaps you could try responding why the rationale is false/outdated etc. The problems with non-rendering still occurs, the problem that the names maybe absolutely out of line, the equivelant of say "CumGuzzler" yet those not knowing the language are ignorant of that. With single login the name itself maybe created on another wiki and blocked there for being inappropriate, whilst we happily let it edit here due to the locality of blocking... To put some perspective on this we have blocked about 9 of these since 14th December (6 days) (Filtering the block log for a block comment containing "user" somewhere and then a manual look through, so any errors in this figure are mine). --pgk 17:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop attacking everything I say. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, how am I attacking everything you say? I have pointed out a turn of phrase I find either demanding or patronising, and I have pointed out why I consider the current rationale to still hold. If you didn't want people to address what you are saying then I guess you shouldn't have bothered stating a "disucssion" --pgk 18:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have notified Yamaguchi先生 regarding this discussion, as he has been previously involved in a dispute with other admins. Guess how much time it took for me to search for his user talk page? Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

At a technical level, we (or rather the developers) could fix the blocking/telling other users apart issue, by having such characters display differently on en in special pages like histories and suchforth, possibly with the unicode points for such characters instead of the actual ones. This could be an option. This doesn't solve the problem of signatures, mind. Morwen - Talk 17:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw my opinion into the ring ... I really don't want to have to start dealing with usernames in dozens of languages, most of whose fonts are not supported by default on most of the browsers/OS installations out there. I don't know if there's some way to have SUL names be displayed in transliterated English on here, but it really doesn't make sense to have them all displayed as potentially unreadable characters. --Cyde Weys 17:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This user m:Requests for permissions#User:.E3.81.A3 was blocked on en.wp for no other reason than having a single character Kanji name. When I used the term Anglo-centric earlier, I meant, "Without regard of the other projects." The English wikipedia is the only Wikipedia with this policy. Other active Latin script wikipedias like French and German do quite well without it, and include users that use non-latin scripts. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cary, Cary, Cary; I thought you knew how much affinity GNAA has with en.wiki? There is a huge difference between the userbase on this wiki and other wikis. There can be no comparison. — Nearly Headless Nick 18:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How am I supposed to type that name in? or recognize it? Even if it didn't look like a box with some numbers in it, it would still be indecipherable to the English editors on the English Wikipedia. For the same reason, we do not allow User:♣⊗√∀x. —Centrx→talk • 05:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've considered blocks against non-English usernames to be reprehensibly anglo-centric since the very beginning, so I am glad to see some people having a change of heart. I'm not bothered however by asking people with non-latin names if they have a latin nickname/transliteration that might acceptable (or included in a sig, for example). Such things are helpful to us American idiots who can't read kanji, but I have never agreed that we should force people to only use latin alphabets. (Especially since we have been making exceptions for accented latin characters that are just as untypable on most keyboards as the foreign character sets.) Blocking people for using their real names, according to the way they naturally should be written, is like a color blind person demanding everyone else to never wear red. Except this is worse since the vast majority of wikipedians should be able access browsers/font packs capable of displaying that name with only a little effort. Dragons flight 05:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We also speedy delete non-English articles. Can you imagine? The English Wikipedia uses English! —Centrx→talk • 07:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we also speedy-block people who are translating and transwiki-ing? (to english) ;-) Kim Bruning 21:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

I think we need to explain things a little more. The facts are:

• for the moment, non latin accounts are blocked on sight.
• in the very future, SUL will merge all accounts from the same person into one single account.

What bastique and others, including me, ask is:

• blocking accounts in a different alphabet should not be the default behavior anywhere, neither on the english-language wikipedia nor on the japanese or russian ones.
• If people use their account to add interwikis sometimes, there should be no problem with them keeping their non latin username.
• If people are active on the project, we assume they know the language at least a little. Thus, we can ask them to use an alias (see Special:Preferences > signature) readable by the people on this project.

Thanks for your comments. guillom 17:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with this. The one addition I would make is that people who are going to be editing actively should register a dummy account and create a redirecting userpage at the latin-character name used in their signature, thus resolving the issue of how to find their userpage through the search box. --Robth^Talk 18:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Conditional support. Only flagged interwiki slaves users should be considered for this. :) — Nearly Headless Nick 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Guillom and Robth. DVD+ R/W 18:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I, too, agree with Guillom and Robth. (PS: when blocking a non latin script account, please don't block the IP, as happened to me ;-) ) Kipmaster 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat's approach

I think both sides have valid arguments. A non-latin username will indeed cause problems to people without the necessary files and Non-latin characters will look like '?' on computer without the necessary files.

However en.wikipedia cannot afford to ban non-latin characters if it is seeking a multi-cultural and lingual community. It is perfectly legitimate for an Arabic speaking person to have a username he/she can read. Users are not required to know English to contribute here. People can work on stuff like interwiki links without knowing any English.

On commons for instance people are not required to speak English but are recommended to do so. In deletion debates most of the discussion is voluntarily in English even though participants of such debates can discuss the matter in their native language.

I can have a Japaneses username and alter my signature so that it displays the romanised.

This rule isn't compatible with single user login

--Cat out 18:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just use those symbols in your signatures, if you want to have some fun. You can't have the cake and eat it too! ;) — Nearly Headless Nick 18:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Some anonymous fool's approach

Since we're already messing with it, history, recent changes, and all that, to add the (+123) stuff, make it so that a user number is displayed in the bracket. This makes it no worse than dealing with us anonymous fools. E.g.:

* (diff) (hist). Wikipedia talk:Username‎; 17:37 . (+186) .  дурак (#1283712|Talk|contribs) (→Non-latin characters and Unified Login)

192.75.48.150 18:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Unusual, but innovative. In a case of impersonation, however; we would not be expecting administrators to remember each other's numbers, would we? Maybe change it to something unique like instead of the number we have something in English (like their En.wiki usernames/transliteration of their usernames in English), implemented universally. — Nearly Headless Nick 18:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this approach would work out the best. If someone's computer can not understand the username, they can always see the id number to block. Naconkantari 19:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This type of problem illustrates why, IMHO, this is not a good idea: [2]. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How does that illustrate the problem? Bastiq▼e ^demandez 20:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the English text the person used, there was no way to distinguish between vandalism and legitimate edits, just as there is no way to distinguish whether the name means "FUCK JIMBO" or whether it is just a common name in Chinese? —Centrx→talk • 05:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no shortage of Wikipedians that do read Chinese (especially watching articles like Beijing, I'm sure) and no particular rush to address such issues, anyway. If the troll really does use a language very few people can read, then he hasn't actually accomplished much. There is a difference between respecting people's right to use their own name, and saying that the encyclopedia itself is written in English. Dragons flight 07:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If the purpose of allowing these characters would be to welcome speakers of other languages, I should think they would not be welcomed very well by seeing unchecked inflammatory epithets written in the language. —Centrx→talk • 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I can also write « que jimbo aille se faire foutre chez les grecs » with latin characters, but you don't understand it either :) guillom 09:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea too, it adds a way to distinguish people without adding anything restrictive (+combine with guillom's proposal above). And I guess it's very easy to implement. Kipmaster 09:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Some more further info

As brion has indicated, single unified login is going to happen. There is no changing that, and no amount of arguing, whining or crying is going to change it. So, we are going to be confronted with the creation of thousands of accounts with foreign usernames. So, there are some options:

1. Keep the existing policy. This means that users coming from, let's say, ruwiki, have their account created automatically, and then have it blocked and forced to create a new latinized global account. So much for "single, unified", huh? It is evident already on foundation-l that actions like those would cause a severe strain on interwiki relations.
2. Ditch the current policy.
3. Adjust it slightly, as Guilliom suggests.

Either way, saying, "I don't want to deal with this problem" is not an option. We have to deal with it before the feature is turned on, as accounts will be created automatically at that point. Hence, I've tagged the policy section as disputed. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly support Guilliom's suggestion. Maybe we can make use of those automatic transliteration tools someone mentioned on the mailing list so that people can automatically generate a localised signature for themselves. --bainer (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, automatic transliteration programs won't work with all languages, especially with trying to determine the context of certain characters. For example, determining which pronunciation to choose for certain Chinese characters, determining the difference between Hanyu and Romanji, dealing with heterograms, etc.. If we were to use such a program, it would require many many man-hours of work to put together enough context for it to function "most of the time." אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 19:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Titoxd, we are not whining or crying. We are in discussion. No one can impose anything without consensus on Wikipedia. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well actually developers and the board can impose things. Single User Login is one such thing which will effectively import very many foriegn language users on this and every other project (many tens of thousands, if I had to guess), and make it so that when a user visits another wiki they automatically use the same account as on their home wiki. This has advantages for user tracking, ease of editting multiple wikis, and preference management. It also allows things like cross-wiki notification of talk page messages. Single User Login will happen. The question is how will en respond to the new accounts. Will we simply block every Japanese wikipedian whose name is written in kanji (and thus breaking any of the advantages of single user login), or will we find a more measured approach (such as asking for transliteration in sigs rather than requiring it in usernames). Dragons flight 08:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the discussion on the foundation mailing list can only be described as that. Brion Vibber, the Foundation's CTO, has indicated that is going to go ahead, in its current form, and that many details of it are not negotiable, including the fact that an account will have the same alias everywhere. No transliterations, no way to use alternate accounts, no nothing. This means that admins from the Japanese Wikipedia will have a local account created for them automatically, as soon as they enter the English Wikipedia while logged into their global accounts. There is actually no way to stop that from occuring. As Dragons flight indicates, the only thing that we can do is to decide how to treat our new visitors. Do we block them? I wouldn't. On the mailing list, A few users admins have already indicated their desire for the Japanese Wikipedia to block latin-script usernames if the English Wikipedia policy continues, and I am not confident that they meant that in jest. Please try to see the broader interwiki ramifications that continuing a policy that will become technically obsolete will bring. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So their reason for blocking would be revenge, without which they would allow latin usernames? —Centrx→talk • 09:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If some unlikely suggestions are adopted, yes. Cooler heads will probably prevail, though. Titoxd^(?!?) 09:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

They do presently allow latin usernames. Dragons flight 09:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ral315's opinion

Moved from WP:AN. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What we could/should do:

1. Stop blocking non-latin; I agree that this goes too far. Now that brion's disallowed the mixing of different scripts, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.
2. Create a page: Wikipedia:Font help for users and admins alike, explaining how to install all unicode scripts on their computers.
3. Have active editors with non-latin usernames create an alias with non-latin characters (perhaps a transliteration of their username, if possible), with a redirect from the latin name to their non-latin name. Have them sign with the latin name for simplicity.
4. Create a page of active editors with non-latin usernames, allowing users to go to this page and just click their username to get to their userpage (probably use {{userlinks}}).

Thoughts? More importantly, to language geeks, is it possible to easily install all scripts at once? Ral315 (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• What about casual users? Should the readers and editors on Wikipedia be required to install additional software in order to identify other users on the English Wikipedia?
• Will these users be required to sign comments with their latin redirect names? How are the latin usernames going to be identifiable in page histories? If they are creating latin usernames, why can they not just use those instead of the non-latin ones?

—Centrx→talk • 09:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why should users who are starting on the English Wikipedia use non-Latin characters? With single-user logins, the home wiki can police the user names of their users, but the home wiki should be able to read the username. Will we end up with the bizarre situation of a username blocked on the Japanese Wikipedia because it is inflammatory or libellous, but allowed on the English Wikipedia where almost no one can read it, remember it, or type it in? That is, we would be allowing non-Latin characters in order to accommodate other wikis, but the wikis we would be accommodating would have blocked the very username we were supposed to be accommodating! —Centrx→talk • 09:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Why can't a user on the Japanese Wikipedia, or better yet, an admin on the English Wikipedia that speak Japanese, tell us that the name is offensive? Besides, the reason someone who is starting out on the English Wikipedia gets a non-Latin username is because the software automatically generates it for them as soon as they visit it. Titoxd^(?!?) 09:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• The numbers of characters of various other languages would increase massively once SUL is implemented. Do you think the Japanese (or other language) administrators (which are in the absolute minority here) be there all the time to hand out blocks? — Nearly Headless Nick 09:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Ultimately (though not in the initial implementation probably), single user login will allow for unified log files so that you could check a single log and learn about any blocks issued against that account on any other Wikipedia. Obviously if an account had been blocked indefinately on their home wiki that should be a massive red flag and prompt further investigation. It also opens the possibility (in the even more distant future) that username blocks could be issued globally rather than applied to only a single account on a single wiki (though rules governing any global blocks would require significant discussion beforehand). Dragons flight 09:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Question from a newbie

I have just been reading a bunch of policy stuff, and have a question. This whole "once SUL is implemented, the non-Latin name blocks have to stop" doesn't seem to fit with history. Whatever happened to individual wikipedias determining their own policies? Jimbo Wales, the founder of WP, said that each wikipedia would have its own policies, etc. So why are a few people from other language wikipedias trying to change en.wiki policy to suit them? Maybe I am being harsh, but isn't blocking names that many editors can't make heads or tails of our own prerogative? Help a newbie out. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably part of the idea is to help the process of flowing content outwards from en (and the other big editions, such as de) to other editions. Ultimately, if you see a lot of ????? and &^$(*$&^ people editing stuff, you have to do the obvious thing and look at the edit, not the person (which is a good general principle anyway). If you think the edit is dodgy, leave a message on their user page. They may not understand you, but if they do, they will probably do their best to reply. If you know their language, you can try and reply. If the edit is obviously wrong, revert it with an edit summary explaining why. Report vandalism to those who have the correct fonts installed and can tell the difference between ???? and ????, and they can investigate further and take it from there. There will probably also be lots of help for those wanting to get all the correct fonts installed. If you can't read the language, there will hopefully be a more readable universal attribute, like an ID number, so you can tell if two edits are by the same person. Carcharoth 14:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

ID num. in Signatures?

Why not include the id number in signatures (or anywhere else usernames are used)? This would prevent any sort of impersonation on talk pages. -- Jmax- 08:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You can always fake a number. 227287 08:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What about common sense?

Let's see: main reason for blocking offensive usernames are negative feelings of legitimate users they cause. How many users will feel uncomfortable when they see User:Jews did WTC? Many. And when they see its Russian equivalent User:Евреи взорвали ВТЦ? Not so many. When a Russian-speaking user will notice such username s/he'll report it to AIV with a brief explanation and malicious user will be blocked. If a user with offensive uswername remains unnoticed, his purpose is not accomplished. If he's noticed, he'll be blocked. If he starts making disruptive edits, he'll be blocked no matter of username. So, do non-latin usernaes still need to be blocked at sight? I don't think so. MaxSem 09:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about the technical issues surrounding lay people who edit Wikipedia, without the knowledge of non-Latin scripts, not a hate campaign against non-Latin scripts. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Nichalp's opinion

I am against having non-Latin scripts in the English wikipedia. Robth has the best solution of having doppelganger en accounts. His idea is simple and effective. This is what I have to add.

• Don't block the non-Latin account on sight.
• If the offending account makes content changes to the en wiki, then request him to create a doppelganger account, with a redirects from his old user and talk pages to his new ones.
• In the probability that he doesn't, then consider a block.

Why I seek a block

• Even though I may have the script, I have no clue as to what the character is even if I look it up in the Windows Character map. Take this اج for example. How does one effectively know which script it is from? Is is Farsi, or is it Arabic? (It's Farsi btw, taken from the Taj Mahal). Next thing: Which character? Look at the number of characters supported in Arabic. To the untrained eye, almost all appear similar.
• Next, when dealing with many scripts, there exists the problem with conjuncts. Look at this letter: क्ष It's a character in Devanagiri. It's a conjunct, which means that the character will only be displayed after typing in certain sequence of characters. Do most people know about this? No.
• No one has mentioned the problems associated with working with right to left languages. Try mixed character editing in the Hewbrew or Arabic to see what I mean.
• Some fonts will always be problematic. am:, got: and si: have been slightly problematic in the display of fonts.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This does not address the issue of incompatibility with SUL. If people must use a second account on certain Wikimedia wikis they will not have a unified login, user contributions, nor talk page notice.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we could ask the devs to link two accounts together. I'm sure it would be child's play as compared to the SUL code. Then submit a request on the lines CHU, and problem solved! =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is actually implemented, I will stop objecting.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC) I mean if this is actually announced as part of the SUL implementation. I don't mean that I need to see it go live. Sorry for the poor wording.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Brion has indicated previously that he will *NOT* allow linked accounts as part of SUL, at least in this iteration. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yuser31415's opinion

I suggest that we continue to block usernames containing non-Latin characters on sight. This is the English encyclopedia, not the Japanese, Chinese, Russian, or Siberian equivalent. Why should we allow usernames that make collaboration and actions with that user hard, if not impossible? As for an above argument that users could have an account name they could understand, don't we have to understand it too? Just because a user does not know English and is adding interwiki links to other Wikipedias, that does not mean they can't have an English username. Feedback? Yuser31415 22:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything I've been saying, rehashed in a few words. Amen. Patstuart^talk·edits 16:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Universally recognised attribute

The best idea I've seen so far is this: there needs to be, attached to each account, a universally recognised attribute that can be recognised by any user from any language in the world, and which displays in all fonts and operating systems. This would avoid the problems of being unable to distinguish between different peopole in edit histories (the "????" vs "????" issue) and would enable people to refer to an account by this attribute (eg. editor 7643924 instead of editor ????). See this post on the wikien-l mailing list. I don't post to or subscribe to that list, but can someone please pass this on. I will also post this to Brion Vibber's user page.

As for what the universally-recongnisable attribute should be, I would tentatively suggest the Latin numeric script (ie. we all get a unique ID number). Is that universally-enough recognised and displayed worldwide in different languages and systems?

More generally, in the above discussions, people seem to confuse two separate issues: that of people being able to read the script (a problem of not knowing the alphabet or language), and that of people's computers being unable to display the script. A universal attribute that is not a username possibly solves all this. Carcharoth 14:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Two more relevant mailing list posts on this issue: [3] and [4]. Carcharoth 14:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

svn:trunk/extensions/CentralAuth/central-auth.sql has the relevant database specification. It will include a global database ID number, so it could be exposed, if developers authorize. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Futhermore

At the risk of BEANS, we can distinguish between allowing a non-latin manual account creation and an automatic one from a brother wiki. Rich Farmbrough, 15:59 21 December 2006 (GMT).

OMG

Talk about unintended consequences.

So because of the en policy, this user had to go to umpteen different wikis. That's just... braindead. He shouldn't need to do that. In fact, can we already make an exception for this guy? [5]

Kim Bruning 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But just to switch to the 'other side' (of course we are all on the same side) and play devil's advocate, might I just ask you what "this guy's" name is? Can you type out his name for me? What shall we call him other than "this guy"? Are you aware that when referring to "this guy" you will have to use links and vague handwaving pointing instead of name? I realise that is actually rare to need to refer to people by name (most of the time Wikipedians are talking about content, not the editors, at least we should be), but when we do need to say "look at what that guy's doing", it is nice to be able to refer to them by name. Hang on. What if I copy and paste: っ. Oh. It works. Right, instead of referring to "this guy", we can call him (or her) by name. I agree that っ shouldn't have to change his/her name. What does っ mean, anyway? (I guess this whole SUL thing will be a steep learning curve for en editors). Carcharoth 23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

See:っ of course. --Kim Bruning 23:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC) so much for en.wikipedia only having articles on english subjects :-P

D'oh! Carcharoth 00:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I've yet to see one good argument for not allowing nonlatin names. I've seen some arguments which seem to miss the point. For example people say what about if the name is offensive? This is of course silly since you can do this with latin character names easily. For example, I could call myself "puki mak" which is an offensive phrase in Malay. Other arguments like impersonating people doesn't hold water either. Similarly, someone could be impersonating someone in the Malay or French or whatever wiki that uses latin characters. Or even a real person not know much outside a country Nil Einne 10:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've heard way too much controversy about this lately, and at any rate there's the unified login coming up. I've stricken this part of the policy, pending further discussion. >Radiant< 14:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Controversy alone is not a valid reason to remove the text. There appears to be fairly reasonable consensus in the enwiki community that at least the recommendation to tranliterate names should remain. Furthermore, the harm caused by this policy has not been quantified.. it's only being attacked through speculation. On the flip side, it's easy to demonstrate that most non-ascii names are intended for vandalism [6].

I agree that this is a difficult set of issues and that we should solve it, but simply removing a consensus recommendation is not a solution. Instead, perhaps, we should only make such demands for users who are not active on other projects, require that they speak the language whos script they are using, and suggest that they at least transliterate their name in their sig? I'm not sure... at least it's some ideas worth discussing. --Gmaxwell 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with Radiant that the discussion here, on wikien-l and on foundation-l demonstrates a lack of consensus with regards to generically blocking names that appear in foreign scripts. I don't object to recommendations about the virtues of transliteration, etc., but such recommendations would belong higher up the page (in the general discussion of choosing a username), rather than in the section on inappropriate usernames. Dragons flight 21:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The text as written is somewhat interesting, because it sounds like a recommendation but it's in the section on prohibitions. I think there is one very important factor to consider: We are not generically blocking names that appear in foreign scripts... at least to whatever extent we are doing so, we're doing a poor job: There are over 400,000 accounts enwiki which contain non-ascii characters but only 3,394 block log blocking entries which refer to an account with a non-ascii character. --Gmaxwell 21:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How many of those are used for editing? It's not a problem if someone who has an account only to read or use a watchlist but never edits to have an unreadable username, or if it simply a throwaway account that slipped through, because no one needs to communicate with it or refer to it and the username never shows up anywhere in page histories, etc. If the username starts editing though, it would be blocked. You may be able to find non-ASCII usernames in the total list of user accounts, but not in page histories. Also 400,000 seems quite high, are you sure this doesn't include some common recognizable character? One-eighth of all usernames having a non-ASCII username would seem to be unnatural even if we allowed non-latin characters were perfectly allowed; anyway, it is certainly not one-eighth of all contributors. —Centrx→talk • 21:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that the 400k number is in error. Although in most places the space charater is converted to an underscore, this is not the case for the user table. As a result I was erroniously counting space as a non-ascii character. 7,678 is the correct number. I provided a link to the list of blocked users, I'll now provide a list of all the non-blocked. --Gmaxwell 22:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The original formulation asked people to "Avoid non-Latin characters" but it intensity crept up to its current outright prohibition, perhaps we should take the text back to its original form and request admins execute good judgment in placing blocks? --Gmaxwell 21:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sure that is very comforting to the Japanese admin who was blocked within 15 minutes of registering here a few days ago. Some people definitely do treat it as block on sight, and some people do argue that doing so is "right". Can you say anything about whether this has been used more recently? The earliest version of the section dates to March. If it is intended as a recommendation, I think it is clearly misplaced. Dragons flight 21:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This should minimally be toned down a bit, to encourage people to "avoid" these names but not encourage blocking on sight. JYolkowski // talk 01:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's fine to discourage people from non-Latin usernames. It's not fine to block non-Latin usernames at sight. Some people have been doing the latter, and the results were unpleasant. >Radiant< 10:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

PS Please also see my commments above why non-latin based scripts should not be used. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Different accounts and sockpuppetry

At the moment, the same person can run different accounts on a Wikipedia edition (with various caveats) and not have to say that they are running these different accounts (see WP:SOCK), though the actual practice of sockpuppetry is discouraged because of the potential for abuse, and it is recommended that the accounts be openly declared. If someone sets up different accounts at different Wikipedias in the forthcoming age of SUL, will the same considerations apply, and will separate accounts on different Wikipedia editions run by the same person be considered sockpuppets in the same way that accounts on a particular Wikipedia edition are? Carcharoth 00:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that what is being referred to here is the use of nom-de-plumes (incorrect to allow for links) - ie legitimate use of more than one name in different contexts - as with Jean Plaidy and "associates" - rather than conventional sockpuppetry. Could the debate be cast in terms of noms-de-plume rather than sockpuppets.

Jackiespeel 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

sexual preference -> sexual orientation

This is probably a really minor point, but I changed "sexual preference" -> "sexual orientation" under the inappropriate usernames section. "Orientation" is in more common usage and is less objectionable to some folks. If you disagree with the change, revert me or discuss it here. Peace, delldot | talk 07:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable change. -- Satori Son 14:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ideas for script policy

Now, there's been plenty of heat here and on the Foundation mailing list, some intemperate actions and some quite outrageous accusations on this topic, but I think it's not impossible to have some sensible ideas that extend beyond signatures and take into account RC lists and the like.

How about All users whose usernames are in a non-Latin script must already have edits with that username on their home wiki.

This would take into account the changes SUL will bring while also stopping people registering nonsense usernames in foreign scripts for the purposes of vandalism. Admittedly it won't deal with all my concerns, but I think it's a reasonable compromise.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How can one check this? There are 700+ wikis, and visiting them all to check if this user exists is virtually impossible. MaxSem 12:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole reason this debate is happening is the impending introduction of single user login (SUL), which will involve every user having one login for all Wikimedia wikis (i.e. all languages and all projects). This should therefore be easy to check. In the meantime, it's trivial to demand that a user points to an account on another wiki and does an edit on that wiki to prove the two accounts have one person behind them. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

IIRC NullC points out that there's not really that large a number of non-latin-script usernames on en.wikipedia anyway, relative to the entire pool of usernames. Many new usernames are created for vandalism, I don't think we need a special case for this. Kim Bruning 16:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the assumption is that there could well be more in the future, with SUL. Or are you suggesting that any policy restricting username scripts is unnecessary? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Kim Bruning 12:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a fine idea. After SUL everyones user contributions link will show there contributions for all wikis. So this will be an easy check when that is implemented. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

While it can sound like a fine compromise at first, I don't think it works well. It still discriminates against people who want to use foreign scripts on this wiki. Consider a person who does so, do you really plan to block them just because they didn't have an account on another wiki under the same name? It is effectively saying that Japanese Wikipedians can use kanji names, but an English Wikipedian who is enamored of kanji would not be allowed to, and yet from the point of view of life on the English wikipedia there is no real difference between the two cases. If we allow foreign scripts, then we should allow foreign scripts. We should not create hurdles for their use on the basis of whether one class of users can be considered to legitimately have foreign names while others can not. According to Gmaxwell above, fewer than 8000 of the 3+ million usernames on en incorporate foriegn scripts. I don't see any need to create special rules for dealing with such a small "wave of vandalism". Dragons flight 17:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The reson this is a good compromise is because it is compatible with SUL. While you feel it unfair to en.WP users who want kanji, it does not break SUL for these editors. Script preference and SUL functionality are far from equally important issues IMHO. Please do reject a solution which is compatible with SUL over a more minor grievence. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I consider blocking foreign scripts to be discriminatory on its face. In my opinion, blocking good users with those names is always wrong. I am grateful that SUL has brought others to my side, but limiting solutions to those that only respond to SUL does not go far enough in my opinion. And saying that foreign users are okay, but not local users with foreign names is just another form of discrimination. Dragons flight 18:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The users are not blocked, the names are. With some characters, the software does not even allow the creation of the username in the first place. This policy discriminates between letters used in the English language and letters not used in the English language, for specific reasons related to the purpose of usernames and the smooth functioning of the English Wikipedia. For similar reason, "English-language sources should be provided whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources"[7]. In this case, if someone is beginning a new username on the English Wikipedia, it is quite possible for them to create a name using English text. For similar reason, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines states "Use English: No matter to whom you are addressing your comments, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is because comments should be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments if possible or on request. If you cannot, it is your responsibility to either find a fluent third party to do so or to contact a translator through the Wikipedia:Embassy." Usernames likewise should be comprehensible to the username at large, and if the use of another language is unavoidable as in the case of single-user login, the verification of that username is provided by the home wiki. None of this implies any ethnic prejudice beyond the prejudice that is already inherent in requiring that the English Wikipedia be written in the English language. All Wikimedia projects are segregated by language. —Centrx→talk • 11:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

1. As you noted, "with some characters, the software does not even allow the creation of the username in the first place." That's because there are technical issues that cause such characters to be problematic. If there were similarly significant concerns regarding these non-Latin characters, they would be blocked here too. As Dragons flight noted, the reasons expressed thus far pertain to minor inconveniences. To address these specifically:

2. That some people's software is technically deficient is not a valid reason to prohibit others from using their real names as their usernames. It's easy enough to update or replace one's browser to properly display non-Latin characters.

3. People have cited these characters' lack of recognizability, and I'm waiting for someone to explain why it's so important for every username to be instantly understandable. (To imply that this is comparable to the need for articles and talk page messages to be written in English is silly.) We have over three million registered accounts, and you aren't going to remember all of them. (When you've seen dozens of usernames along the lines of "CoolDude64," they're no more memorable than they would be if they were written with non-Latin characters.) Furthermore, the new recommendation (which should not be a requirement) to transliterate non-Latin usernames in the signatures is a viable alternative to transliterating them prior to registration.

4. Finally, you noted that "if someone is beginning a new username on the English Wikipedia, it is quite possible for them to create a name using English text." Yes, and it also is "quite possible" to demand that anyone with a "foreign" name select something easier for English-speakers to read and pronounce (perhaps "Toby"). This probably would please some individuals, but that doesn't make it right. —David Levy 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Until recently, "@" was allowed by the software. It was not technically necessary to disable it; it was disabled to force users not to use e-mail addresses as usernames, which was forbidden by the username policy such as to prevent spam for unwitting users. While developers can force certain policy issues, or change them on request, they do not however mandate policy. Preventing "@" does prevent users from making a legitimate choice about their usernames.

2-3. The ability of others to recognize, remember, and type in usernames is the fundamental purpose of usernames. There may be several "CoolDude" with numbers, but there are actually few "CoolDude"'s, and if any one of them is established, new usernames with different numbers would be banned under this policy, just as a "David Levy1" would be banned as being too similar to an existing user. This policy, too, prevents people from using their chosen names, even their real names, but it is appropriate to prevent accidental or intentional impersonation, if the identifiable part of the username (in this case, not the numbers) is the same. There are other people named "David Levy" who cannot use their real names on Wikipedia just because you were first. I don't see why forcing someone to transliterate "Toby" in his signature rather than his username would be any more righteous.

4. If a user has a transliteration in the signature, why can they not use that transliteration in the username, instead of "Toby"? Forcing transliteration in signatures is requiring users to "select something easier for English-speakers to read and pronounce". The username policy only requires that a name consist of phonemes or simple patterns, not that they must be made of English words. —Centrx→talk • 03:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Until recently, "@" was allowed by the software. It was not technically necessary to disable it; it was disabled to force users not to use e-mail addresses as usernames, which was forbidden by the username policy such as to prevent spam for unwitting users. While developers can force certain policy issues, or change them on request, they do not however mandate policy. Preventing "@" does prevent users from making a legitimate choice about their usernames.

1. I was unable to find the quote, but I distinctly remember a developer commenting that the use of the "@" symbol in usernames has resulted in some technical issues. Note that the similar "＠" symbol remains a valid character in new usernames.

2. The prohibition of the "@" symbol in usernames affects all new users equally. That isn't remotely the same as a policy that would discriminate against people based upon the characters used to spell their real names.

3. Actually, developers can mandate policy under certain circumstances. Quoting Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, policy can be created as the result of "declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load."

The ability of others to recognize, remember, and type in usernames is the fundamental purpose of usernames.

I address this in one of my other replies to you.

There may be several "CoolDude" with numbers, but there are actually few "CoolDude"'s, and if any one of them is established, new usernames with different numbers would be banned under this policy, just as a "David Levy1" would be banned as being too similar to an existing user. This policy, too, prevents people from using their chosen names, even their real names, but it is appropriate to prevent accidental or intentional impersonation, if the identifiable part of the username (in this case, not the numbers) is the same. There are other people named "David Levy" who cannot use their real names on Wikipedia just because you were first.

1. I disagree with your interpretation of the username policy. It requests that people using their real names "please add a middle name or initial or some other way of distinguishing between [them] and the existing contributor," and I fail to see how appending a numeral fails to qualify. Another David Levy registered the username DavidMLevy (adding a middle initial), explained on his user page that he wasn't me, and kindly e-mailed me to say hello. I see no likelihood of confusion (even if he were to begin editing regularly), and I sincerely hope that no one blocks him.

2. The policy is less lenient when it comes to pseudonyms. Right or wrong, this does not discriminate on the basis of nationality.

3. As noted by Dragons flight, transliteration from some scripts to the Latin alphabet causes multiple names to appear identical. This actually reduces the number of available usernames (because people with different names suddenly have the same name).

I don't see why forcing someone to transliterate "Toby" in his signature rather than his username would be any more righteous.

...which is why I plainly stated that this "should not be a requirement."

If a user has a transliteration in the signature, why can they not use that transliteration in the username,

They can (if they so desire). Who said that they couldn't?

instead of "Toby"?

You do realize that my "Toby" reference was part of a hypothetical scenario...don't you?

Forcing transliteration in signatures is requiring users to "select something easier for English-speakers to read and pronounce".

Of course, I expressed my opinion that this "should not be a requirement." If someone wishes to do that (or to transliterate his/her name for the username), he/she is welcome to. —David Levy 04:55/21:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Foundation can mandate certain policies, but such a mandate must be based on reason, which is open for anyone to discuss; and the absence of a software-level technical requirement for a certain kind of username is not equivalent to a Foundation mandate.

1. I don't see why someone should be prohibited from using his real name just because a celebrity has the same name. Anyway, we could allow same names and all manner of things if user accounts were only identified by numbers. That would have problems exactly in identifying and remembering usernames, but it would not mean that I am a number.

2. Disallowing untypable and unrememberable characters discriminates on the basis of the characters used in the name of the registered user account. That is all.

3. All of the username policies reduce the number of available usernames.

If there is no transliterated name at all, what do you think the purpose of a username is? I realize that "Toby" was an example intended to illustrate some sort of ethnic bias in requiring foreigners to using English given names, but no one is suggesting that. Further correspondence should probably be in a new section, and this numbering system is not working correctly. —Centrx→talk • 22:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Foundation can mandate certain policies, but such a mandate must be based on reason, which is open for anyone to discuss; and the absence of a software-level technical requirement for a certain kind of username is not equivalent to a Foundation mandate.

I didn't claim otherwise. I noted that it would be very easy to automatically bar the creation of such usernames here if there were a need and consensus.

I don't see why someone should be prohibited from using his real name just because a celebrity has the same name.

I have mixed feelings on this issue. It isn't really fair, but I see the potential for disruption. I disagree with your assertion that non-Latin usernames are significantly problematic.

Anyway, we could allow same names and all manner of things if user accounts were only identified by numbers. That would have problems exactly in identifying and remembering usernames, but it would not mean that I am a number.

What's your point?

Disallowing untypable and unrememberable characters discriminates on the basis of the characters used in the name of the registered user account. That is all.

I'm not implying that the intent is to discriminate against people from certain cultures, but that's the end result.

All of the username policies reduce the number of available usernames.

There are legitimate reasons to impose restrictions. I'm arguing that this isn't one of them.

If there is no transliterated name at all, what do you think the purpose of a username is?

Usernames serve as unique visual representations of individual users, regardless of whether you're able to read them. You are capable of clicking on links and copying/pasting, no?

I realize that "Toby" was an example intended to illustrate some sort of ethnic bias in requiring foreigners to using English given names, but no one is suggesting that.

The entire scenario was hypothetical. If we're to require transliteration to Latin characters, why stop there? The resultant usernames still will be difficult for most native English readers to comprehend, so why not go a step further by requiring the use of names that we can fully understand?

Further correspondence should probably be in a new section, and this numbering system is not working correctly.

I experienced no problems until you just removed my most recent reply and reverted one that I simultaneously edited. Please be more careful. —David Levy 22:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You refer to this as a "solution," but I've seen no evidence of a problem. —David Levy 20:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that single-user login will lead to usernames on the English Wikipedia that otherwise violate the username policy. —Centrx→talk • 11:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

...except, of course, for the fact that the username policy does not prohibit the use of non-Latin characters in usernames. —David Levy 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. Just because no one is edit warring over a bogus removal of text from the page does not mean that the change is suddenly valid. The removal is contested and was also clearly hasty as it does not even discourage the use of non-latin characters or explains the reasons for not using them, advice which has been in the username policy since these names started showing up more in March, and which remains in, for example, the French and Italian Wikipedia username policy. —Centrx→talk • 02:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please direct my attention to a past version of the policy that explicitly prohibited usernames containing non-Latin characters. Prior to the recent edits, it merely asked users to "please consider transliterating" their names. —David Levy 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It was under "inappropriate usernames" and users were regularly blocked for it. It is as "inappropriate" as many of the other items listed there and for which users are blocked. —Centrx→talk • 21:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

1. It was in that section, but the text itself did not jibe with this placement or with the claim that usernames containing non-Latin characters were prohibited. It clearly read as a mere recommendation, just as the current text does.

2. I've seen sysops block users for various nonexistent offenses. —David Levy 21:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like you did edit war over it. The fact remains that the policy is not amended by simply removing the text, and that there are many good reasons for not having these usernames that are not addressed by referring to "human rights" nonsense. —Centrx→talk • 02:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I edit warred? I merely relocated existing text to a different section of the page (as discussed on this talk page). You call that "edit warring"? Or are you lumping together everyone who disagrees with you? —David Levy 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not thee specifically. —Centrx→talk • 21:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, could the problem really be more that admins are just blocking these on sight even if they might be valid, instead of trying to engage the user in discussion? It seems to me that discouraging blocking on-sight overall might be an alternate solution to this problem, instead of attempting to add specific conditions on when people can have such a username. JYolkowski // talk 18:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I to understand, Sam, that you wish to prohibit people whose names are spelled with non-Latin characters from using said names at the English Wikipedia unless they can prove that they've edited another Wikimedia wiki in a different language (as though that's some sort of prerequisite)? Last I checked, there was no rule against contributing exclusively in a non-primary language. —David Levy 20:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why users should come to the English-language Wikipedia and have a username in a foreign script that's unreadable to the majority of users, not only from a technical viewpoint (not having fonts installed) but from a linguistic viewpoint (I can't read Thai script, for example). Especially with the imminent implementation on SUL, there is an obvious exception to be made for those who already use a foreign script on a different wiki for consistency's sake. But, in general, I think it's preferable that users have usernames that are readable by the vast majority of other users on the wiki and I see no reason why our policy should not encourage this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sam, why should someone be prevented from using their real name just because you are unwilling to try to read it? There are many examples in languages like Chinese and Arabic where there is no way to tranliterate a name without corrupting it. For example, in Chinese there are multiple names (written with different symbols) that would all be written Yin by English speakers. The Wikipedia software has the capacity to allow such a person to use their real name (expressed by the proper symbols), but instead you are advocating policy that would lump all such people in a box called Yin, which is an anglocentric corruption of their true identity. I consider the right of self-identification to be a basic human right. Since Wikipedia supports the ability to self-identify in their own language, I strongly believe that allowing them to do so trumps the minor inconveniences that it might render upon you and others. Dragons flight 00:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Names, by their essence, are for communicating with others. Other than that, they are simply symbols assigned by parents before the named person exists. Names are not personal identity. Anyway, what if I want to "self-identify" as "⊾⦇♣⠭⊇". I think that's a great name, and people do want to express themselves in their usernames, whether by using symbols or by calling themselves "Buddha is the One" or "Penis Doctor". Do you think that these and the endless variety of other usernames that do allow legitimate self-expression should also be allowed? Someone can "self-identify" all the want, but on Wikipedia the usernames are used for identification by others and for communication with others. Wikipedia is not an avenue for a spiritual quest; its policies are conducive to the creation and operation of the encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 11:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"conducive to the creation and operation of the encyclopedia" - such as by encouraging participation by those from outside the the anglocentric world? Dragons flight 15:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is going to come to the English Wikipedia, spurning the Wikipedia in their own language, and expect to use a name in their own foreign script? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A. Many Wikipedias contain very few articles.

B. Many people feel comfortable editing pre-existing articles on familiar subjects, but don't feel comfortable writing new ones (especially in the beginning).

C. The English-language Wikipedia is the largest, and many people learn English as a non-primary language.

Does that answer your question? —David Levy 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Me. By sheer chance, my name is written in latin script anyway (phew). But what if I had been Indian or Korean? Kim Bruning 19:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comparison of the desire to use one's real name with the desire to use a random assortment of characters, religious proclamation, or phrase widely perceived as offensive is patently absurd. —David Levy 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor inconvenience? You mean that I can't read it at all? In any case, users don't have to use their real names. For many months, my username was Smoddy. I'm fairly confident your real name isn't "Dragons flight"... I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that users (who don't want to edit the projects in their own language...) transliterate their names or make up new names. They can always put their real name on their userpage. Yes, MediaWiki has the capacity to do this. But MediaWiki also has the capacity to allow admins to go around arbitrarily blocking people, but we don't allow them to do it. Just that the software allows it does not mean we should allow users to choose any unreadable name. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your being unable to read them is a minor inconvience. It is a problem that will rarely affect you, which you can work around, and which is in the power of nearly all Wikipedians to remedy. Simply switching to recent versions of Firefox, for example, will pick up many foriegn scripts. Dragons flight 15:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

But I still won't be able to read it. สนามบินสุวรรณภูมิ is much the same to me as ในช่วงถนนบางนา – both are completely illegible, just as much as ???????????????? is.

Please could you formulate the policy as you would have it, so I know what your position is? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor inconvenience? You mean that I can't read it at all?

Yes, Dragons flight is correct in stating that this is a minor inconvenience. Why is it crucial for you to be able to instantly recognize everyone's username?

In any case, users don't have to use their real names.

No, but we're allowed to if we so desire. You want to strip certain users of this right because it inconveniences you.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that users (who don't want to edit the projects in their own language...) transliterate their names or make up new names.

I, conversely, feel that it is unreasonable, and I believe that your proposed prerequisite (which reflects neither common sense nor any pre-existing policy) is ethnocentric, unfairly discriminatory and downright un-wiki.

Yes, MediaWiki has the capacity to do this. But MediaWiki also has the capacity to allow admins to go around arbitrarily blocking people, but we don't allow them to do it. Just that the software allows it does not mean we should allow users to choose any unreadable name.

That's a ludicrous analogy. MediaWiki has no means of detecting illegitimate blocks. If there were a compelling reason to bar the creation of usernames containing non-Latin characters, this easily could be implemented at the software level. —David Levy 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Usernames are for identifying and communication with users. If usernames are not identifiable to editors of the English Wikipedia, the username defeats that purpose. I and almost any editor of the English Wikipedia can remember and type in your username. Most editors of the English Wikipedia cannot recognize, remember, or type in non-latin usernames, just as they cannot remember or easily type in usernamesl like "kalsjdfjsdkfj" which area also not allowed. There is no right to self-expression in one's username if it conflicts with the primary purpose of usernames. —Centrx→talk • 03:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

We have over three million registered accounts. Can you "remember" all of these names?

Again, you're describing a minor inconvenience. It's perfectly easy to follow links to editors' user pages, talk pages, contribution histories, et cetera. It's perfectly easy to copy/paste a username when you want to reference someone by name. (I routinely do this anyway, as it's the best way to avoid making a mistake.) There is no urgent need to instantly recognize every username, nor is there any realistic means of accomplishing this. —David Levy 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Heya Sam!

Let's try s/english/japanese/g; : I can't see why users should come to the Japanese-language Wikipedia and have a username in a foreign script that's unreadable to the majority of users, not only from a technical viewpoint (not having fonts installed) but from a linguistic viewpoint (some people can't read Latin script, for example).

Eek. No way!

We're just going to have to learn to read some more kinds of letters. Ignorance, after all, is not an excuse. :-). -- キミ Bruning 00:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Hmmm, easier than it looks

Am I required to get a new keyboard too? Am I supposed to recognize and remember all the phonemes in at least five different kinds of script? What person is so enamored with English that he demands an English name on the Japanese Wikipedia, yet has never edited on the English Wikipedia? —Centrx→talk • 10:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, no new keyboard, no need to memorise multiple scripts. And why make a baroque and complex rule, requiring much work on checking and enforcement, as opposed to just a simple "Hi, welcome to wikipedia", like we always used to do before? :-) كم Bruning 19:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC) and if you're curious... :-)

OK, let's enforce it nicely. As in, ask. We can do that, and if admins refuse, well, that's a) uncivil and b) biting the newbies. It's perfectly possible to have a policy where we insist that people are treated nicely. Incidentally, Kim, your (ironic) comment implies that the only ways to deal with this problem are a) the baroque and complex rule or b) the new keyboard. Actually, this is the truth. However, we're trying to find a middle ground, trying to restrict the issues and simultaneously to welcome users from other wikis. It really isn't unreasonable to ask that we be able to read a user's username. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You hadn't noticed me signing with a new and different script every time? While it'd be fun to trick you into thinking I had this huge pile of keyboards scattered around the room, the truth is, actually I just have 1 ;-)

That, and what is the actual problem you're trying to solve with this specific policy proposal? 김 Bruning 22:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC) for those who are curious

The problem is to accommodate single-user login and so that the same person on different Wikipedias can use the same username. —Centrx→talk • 02:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the fact that we have no policy prohibiting the use of non-Latin characters in usernames, what's the "problem"? —David Levy 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No, ignorance is not an excuse. I think users can do us the courtesy of writing their names in a script we can read without going to significant effort. I know I'll never be able to read Thai script or any Japanese script – they're just too complicated. I don't blame any Japanese user who is unable to learn Latin script, and I think your adaptation of my words for the Japanese Wikipedia is absolutely reasonable, if the ja community wished it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible for users to "do us the courtesy of writing their names in a script we can read without going to significant effort." It's even okay for us to encourage this. To require it is to deprive these individuals of a basic right extended to all other users. —David Levy 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

How is editing Wikipedia under a name of one's choosing a "basic right"? —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That isn't what I wrote. Firstly, I said nothing about "editing Wikipedia under a name of one's choosing." You know that I'm referring to people's real names (not to whatever names they please). Secondly, quoting "basic right" out of context makes it seem as though I'm referring to human rights (which I obviously am not). As is evident from the remainder of my sentence (which you didn't quote), I'm writing in the context of Wikipedia. —David Levy 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to propose this very same thing. —Centrx→talk • 10:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Extremely Long User Names"

How long is "inappropriate"? Just H 23:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Do you have one in mind? If so, my suggestion would be to establish precedent at WP:RFC/NAME and then document that precedent here. JYolkowski // talk 16:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

PNG rendering of non-latin usernames

I don't intend to add heat to the fire. But, if it ends up that we do continue to allow users to create usernames and have them automatically created via SUL, why not have a default setting which renders any non-latin characters as a PNG image? Wikipedians (not anons) who want to change this setting can do so in their preferences, just like they can change the format of math rendering. There could be a top-right notice on every page that uses the PNG rendering, saying something like, "Why can't I copy this text?"...or not, but some notice that would direct anons and Wikipedians alike to a new manual of style page. Of course, the PNG renderer would have to be a new extension or addition, but I can't imagine that it would be too difficult.

Then we could keep the suggestion that Wikipedians with non-latin usernames transliterate their names in their sigs and create a redirect to their user page. --Iamunknown 23:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

God

Ok, since no religion really owns the word God(and please correct me if I am wrong), why should it be protected? This is not a word made up by a specific group for their deity alone(and again please correct me if I am wrong) so why cannot people use it in their name?

Don't get me wrong, I think words such as Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, etc... should be forbidden because there are specific groups who believe in these beings. But the root of the word God is unknown, and it's meaning is varied amongst numerous groups, so which group are we protecting by not allowing this word?

I may be missing the whole point of the username policy, so I welcome other opinions. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In the English speaking world, God (with capital g) is preferentially associated with the Judeo-Christian God, so I don't really think your opening point is accurate. To the degree it is also generalized across faiths just means that there are more people to get offended, not less. Also, following your logic, one might as well ask why do we protect Allah since that is just the Arabic word for God. (A Christian praying in Arabic would say "Allah" to mean the Judeo-Christian God.) No, I generally think it is better stay away from usernames that suggest the user is taking on the identity of an object or being of worship. However, I would have no problem with clearly made up associations (e.g. User:God of Yellow Sticky Notes). Dragons flight 01:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I tend disagree. Numerous sources outside the Jedeo-Christian culture use the term god for their own meaning, regardless of capitalization. I looked around trying to find an official meaning, and it seems that it does not refer to a specific deity, but more the idea of a deity[8].

You bring up an excellent point with made up associations, the word clearly has a greater meaning than JC culture holds it to. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem really is that, in English, the capitalized form of God is used to refer to a specific deity, denoting the concept of "the God" rather than that of "a god". Because of our technical restrictions on article names, any user whose name begins with god will be in violation of the rule, but I think that a username like User:Thunder god would clearly be using the term in the generic sense and permissible. I know we have 2 or 3 users named "death god", referring to the concept of Shinigami, and they have not received any complaints. --tjstrf talk 01:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is my point, it is not so clear cut as the letter of the policy would lead you to believe. User:Nintendo God is okay, but User:Your God is not... What about User:There is no god. Or User:ThankGodForBackspace or User:Godsmack.

I think that the word God could be taken off the list of directly prohibited terms, perhaps to be replaced by something referring to the unclear distinction being drawn now. I have been disagreed with twice, yet both people have provided an example of an acceptable use. This makes me think. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that a username containing God is a bit unrequired; for example, why should one create a username that might be considered "dodgy"? To an extent, I believe usernames containing the word 'god' are okay, but not 'God'. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV; usernames like that are obviously going to offend some people, regardless of the religous group. Yuser31415 03:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that "God" is a title, while "Jesus" and "Jehovah" are personal names for hypothetical entities to which that title might be applied, rather like "Her Majesty" versus "Elizabeth Windsor II". JRSpriggs 09:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Elizabeth Windsor II" is more like "Jesus of Nazareth". Elizabeth, on the other hand, is a popular given name. So is Jesus. And let's not forget Mary and Joseph. Or Mohammed for that matter. Not that the latter are considered divine, but they are religious figures, which is what the rule forbids.

Why are we trying to draw sharp lines based on what we think people might do and who we think ought or ought not to be offended as a result? As far as I can tell this line was introduced here. So rather than trying to distinguish between God and Jesus, how about we just trash the whole line? Wikipedia does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive user names. This general rule ought to be good enough until it is shown that there really is a need to outline specific cases. 192.75.48.150 16:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Admitting my bias as a non-Christian, I'd say that a blanket prohibition on "*[Gg]od*" in usernames is overkill. Anything actually abusive/presumptive can be dealt with on a case by case basis, while freeing up silly things like User:God of War or User:Nintendo God. -- nae'blis 17:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The banning of usernames including the word "God" is completely asinine. It offends me that that would be considered offensive and that we consider it our job to make sure no one on Wikipedia is ever offended. But wait a minute, if we're banning "God" to make sure people aren't offended, what about people who are offended by it being banned? Are the sensibilities of people who value free expression (and even a bit of levity every once in a while) less important that the sensibilities of those who are deeply religious? If so, why? Kaldari 06:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• There is not, nor should there ever be a blanket ban on including G/god in usernames, just a ban on using it and other religous terms alone, which I think is fair, heads off potential inter-user problems and certainly does not prevent us from building an encyclopedia. The case-by-case consensus basis at WP:RFCN on potentially controversial names, including compound words including G/god works just fine. Deizio talk 09:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Number the criteria for quick reference

I've raised this at WP:VPP, and I think it wouuld be a good idea to bring here. The criteria for blocking a username should be numbered/marked like those for speedy deletion, and blocks for username policy violation should be required to include a reference to the specific part of the criteria that prohibits them. Being forced to pick a specific criteria from the list will also cut down on illegitimate blocks, which are a major problem and could easily drive off good contributors who happened to make a silly choice of name. Deletion of pages on a whim is generally frowned upon, but some username blocks right now seem rather arbitrary. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I totally disagree with the statement, "Being forced to pick a specific criteria from the list will also cut down on illegitimate blocks, which are a major problem and could easily drive off good contributors who happened to make a silly choice of name." That assumes facts not in evidence. No one has shown any evidence that we are driving off good contributors. To the contrary, I think it is clear that anyone too-thin-skinned to choose a new username will probably not make a good contributor. At the same time, I support the proposal to number the list of username criteria. It won't hurt, and it may be helpful. Johntex\^talk 21:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If a user's first experience on stepping through the door is a seemingly arbitrary and unfounded block, that's not going to leave a good impression, and VPP has a post up right now about people being blocked improperly. The policy itself says that good faith name choices shouldn't be blocked for the very reason of not wanting to drive off good contributors. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I realize there is a VPP post. That is why we both came here, isn't it? An anecdotal claim that someone what driven off does not mean it is a recurring problem. The fact that someone left (even if proven) over the username does not prove they would have been a good contributor. As I said, I'm fine with numbering the requirements, but all web sites have restrictions on usernames. People coming here need to be able to accept that or they will likely not be good contributors. A good contributor would be more likely to say "Hmmm...I wonder why that one didn't work? Oh well, let me try..." Johntex\^talk 21:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Since the discussion at WP:VPP is much more extensive (I think that's a mistake - the discussion should have been here, given that VPP isn't archived (permanently) and this page is, but whatever ... ), I recommend any further comments be there rather than here. John Broughton | Talk 15:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Illegal

From the policy: Names that promote or refer to violent or otherwise illegal real-world actions (e.g terrorism, organized crime).

I can understand violence, but the illegal part seems very strange to me. Given the international view of Wikipedia, this results in a lot of laws. Which countries laws are we following? If we follow all of them then this is a very restrictive rule indeed. I seems in practice this is interpreted as Illegal in North America.

I put forth the idea that the idea that illegal actions in a name not be specifically restricted. Alcohol is illegal in several countries, beef in another. Should a name that refers to free elections be blocked because free elections are illegal in some country? Laws are just too varying and often created through less than altruistic motives. Any thoughts? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd assume it meant illegal in Florida, like everything else where we refer to illegal actions. --tjstrf talk 21:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Illegal in Florida? Wikipedia does respect US laws over others in matters of copyright due to the necessity of the servers being there. This restriction on usernames is not for the legal protection of Wikipedia, but simply our own policy. Thus, in this case, we should not limit ourselves to the legal interpretation of one country. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion grew out of a discussion at WP:RFCN, where I voted "disallow" on a username that could be interpreted as promoting the illegal use of a drug that is restricted at least U.S., applying the section of the policy cited above.

Now having said that, I agree with HighInBC that we should re-evaluate that line for the reasons he cited. As a starting point, perhaps we could discuss changing the line to Names that promote or refer to violent real-world actions or organizations. This would cover terrorism, organized crime, street gangs, etc., which I think most Wikipedians would agree are inappropriate in usernames. Another issue to consider: should names referring to martial arts (e.g. User:Karate Master) be restricted as well? --Ginkgo100^talk 00:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your "starting point" suggestion also covers legal forms of real-world violence, such as those practiced by the police, the military, and other state apparatus. It's also vague enough to cover many widely practiced (and widely accepted) forms of violence against non-human animals, such as butchery. Do you propose to ban usernames which indicate or imply that the user supports or is a member of a country's police or armed forces? How about usernames which indicate or imply that the user supports or practices vivisection? meat processing? animal husbandry? —Psychonaut 01:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Names that promote or refer to violent real-world actions is plenty fine. As for any ambiguity, it can be solved via WP:RFCN like all the rest of the ambiguity in this policy. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have been bold and changed it, if you disagree revert and discuss. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Potentially inflammatory vs. inflammatory

I reverted an undiscussed change from "potentially inflammatory username" to "inflammatory username" by Kaldari (talk · contribs), there is no need for users to adopt a "potentially inflammatory" username, indeed a username is not inflammatory until it offends someone, but we do not and should not allow a user to call themselves User:N*****c**t and wait until someone objects. Self-expression is fine, but there is no reason to give yourself a potentially inflammatory name to identify yourself while building an encyclopedia, and we should be firm in asserting this. Deizio talk 08:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the name User:Nonfascist? Simply stating in your username that you are not a fascist is somehow inflammatory and should be disallowed? Shall we also disallow User:Nonracist to avoid hurting the feelings of all the racists who visit Wikipedia? —Psychonaut 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Such questions are handled at WP:RFCN. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that every word in the English language is "potentially inflammatory"? "Jewhater" is inflammatory. "Nonfascist" is potentially inflammatory. We should ban the former, not the later. Kaldari 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Usernames containing "God"

This issue has come up a million times on WP:RFCN. Our current guidelines say that no one can have the username "God" which makes sense. However, a lot of editors have taken this to mean that any username containing the word "God" is prohibited. In many cases usernames containing the word God are not in the least bit offensive to anyone, and most of them end up passing RFCN without much controversy. Obviously, many usernames containing "God" are offensive, but we need to clarify that simply containing the word "God" does not automatically warrent banning. Kaldari 18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the change, I brought up a similar point here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, there are currently 1662 editors with usernames beginning with "God". I seriously doubt it would be productive to ban them all. Kaldari 21:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of them already are banned. I'm personally offended by any username that has God in it. Just as I am by any username that has Allah in it. I'd also like to see the proof for this statement: "In many cases usernames containing the word God are not in the least bit offensive to anyone, and most of them end up passing RFCN without much controversy." pschemp | talk 02:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is generally no need to "push the envelope" in a matter like this. While you yourself did not find the username "OhOurGod" offensive, there were four other editors in the thread on RFCN who said that they either found it offensive or that it made them uncomfortable. What purpose does it serve to create difficulty in this manner, when there are many non-controversial alternatives available, and when we are talking about an editor with no edits in the first place? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Users With Religious-related Names.

There is a major discussion going on at WP: RfC/User names over the User JewishPride (talk · contribs). I reported this Username due to its promotion of religious pride. There is also a new User called MuslimPride (talk · contribs). I believe that Usernames containing the name of a religion (such as using "HinduHol;" this Username is made up, by the way), a member of a religion (i.e. "BuddhistBud"), or gives the impression of religious pride should be blocked. Users get banned for having religious figures in their names, so I think we should include these as well. I am not doing it because one of these Users is called "JewishPride," I would still propose this even if the User was called "ChristianPride." Acalamari 22:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how these names are problematic, assuming they are adopted in good faith. I think the number of people who would be offended by someone claiming the name of a deity would far outweight the number of people who would be offended by someone claiming to have pride in their religion (0?). Kaldari 02:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, claiming to be a deity has a high likelihood of being offensive, but the mere mention of a religion is so much more subject to context. Your proposal seems to be to ban any mention of religion, I don't think that is in our best interest. Remember, we are not discouraging opinions, we welcome opinions as a resource that can be used to find a neutral point of view. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but users whose very names appear to promote a specific point of view are unlikely to help in that process, or to be taken seriously if they try. Personally, I would like to see Acalamari's recommendation expanded to cover ethnic and political affiliation as well. Usernames which create the impression that Wikipedia is a battleground are not helpful. -- Visviva 06:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it needs to be less vague, not more. Ethnic and political affiliations are often indistinguishable from geographical labels. IsraeliDude or IraqiHappy could be seen as an ethnic or political affiliation, but what about HighInBC, or BostonMA, or American, these all show pride in a location, which could be seen as a political or ethnic affiliation. This looks like instruction creep, if a person is pushing a POV that is a separate issue than the name.

I would support a revision to the policy that specifically deals with soap boxing, but I think it is already there. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The name High in BC clearly shows affiliation with Bloc Pot. Off with his head. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Lol, actually it is a reference to my enjoyment of hiking in the mountains and valleys of British Columbia, but then again, I do smoke pot when hiking, not really related to my name though. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• If Users wish to express their religion, I believe there are Userboxes to cover this. I have no problem with using Userboxes to display religion, but I think a Username with religious names, figures, etc, shouldn't be allowed. Geographical locations are fine, IsrealiDude, Iraqihappy, of HighInBC. Those names aren't religious. If it was JewishDude, Muslimhappy, or PriestInBC (sorry, HighInBC, it's just an example), that would violate the policy. As for Visviva's suggestion of expanding it to include ethnic and political affiliation...political no, as we don't want "DemocratDan," "RepublicanRon," or "LibertarianLarry," Usernames. Racial or ethnic names would vary. A name like "ScottishPerson" or "BlackMan1111" would be fine. If they were "ScottishPride" or "BlackPower," that would be offensive. Acalamari 16:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with pride in something? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing. I just want to keep religion and race pride away from Wikipedia in order to avoid conflicts. Look at how much discussion JewishPride (talk · contribs) has caused, as proof of what I've been saying. Acalamari 17:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

All I see there is a lack of consensus, that proves nothing. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

We are moving the discussion here to try to get consensus. Personally, I don't think we should allow users to have usernames that create divisions. This username would be extremely divisive in a discussion about articles such as Judaism. Srose (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How would you word such a restriction? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the trouble. Wording it would be difficult. On the other hand, if someone edits an article that is related to their Username, and they edit not according to NPOV, they can be warned can't they? Acalamari 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone edits an article against NPOV, then they can be warned regardless of their username. And if they maintain a NPOV then that should be allowed regardless of the username. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to differ; if someone called "HinduPride" went and edited articles related to Hinduism in a non-NPOV manner, I would be suspicious of this User. Acalamari 02:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of assume good faith, I would not worry about the user until the user demonstrated otherwise. Nothing about the term "HundiPride" demonstrates an expected bias, everyone has pride in something. Most people edit the articles that interest them, and everyone has to overcome their own bias HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Latin character transliterations

As a result of this discussion at Request for comments:user names, and in forethought to the impending arrival of SUL, I would like to propose that transliterations be required and that the wording of this policy be changed from "If your name is written in a non-Latin script, consider providing a transliteration in your signature" to something like "If your name is written in a non-Latin script, provide a transliteration in your signature upon the commencement of active editing on the English Wikipedia." (Active being more than say, 5 edits) This will:

1. Not force every single user with a non-latin username to provide a transliteration even though they don't edit here,
2. Not force editors who edit once or twice to provide a transliteration,
3. Alleviate many of the concerns of illegibility, slurs in other languages that English speakers can't read and distinguishability that are valid concerns of the regular English editors,
4. Not make finding non-latin names a witch-hunt, since they are only requried to include a transliteration if they are active, and active means that likely someone will notice their edits to an article and then can politely ask them to provide this.

This seems like an acceptable compromise based on the many many conversations and concerns raised about this issue. Feel free to make suggestions about the exact wording etc... this is just a first draft. pschemp | talk 18:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

How about:

"If your name is written in a non-Latin script, you must provide a transliteration in your signature when you begin actively editing the English Wikipedia." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, those words sound better. pschemp | talk 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If they don't do it, what happens? Titoxd^(?!?) 20:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Their account gets blocked. Cbrown1023 21:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If they don't, we treat it the same way as we currently do when people are asked politely first to change their username. Indeed, constant non-compliance would result in a temporary block, until a transliteration is provided as until this time, these usernames are confusing for the vast majority of English editors. I'd suggest a {{transliteration}} be drawn up so that all such requests for transliterations are standard and polite and explain exactly how to add one. pschemp | talk 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree — it won't solve all the problems, but it will at least give a straightforward way of dealing with well-meaning users. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is nice, but doesn't do anything to make it possible to track the user through watchlists, page histories, etc. That's the real problem with these usernames, IMO, and is probably a big part of the reason why they are attractive to vandals. Hopefully we will have a server-side solution to this before SUL rolls out. -- Visviva 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well that's being addressed below. But we have to start somewhere. pschemp | talk 00:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You're saying that I should be blocked if I don't provide a transliteration of my username in my signature, though I never would have even used my signature if people hadn't complained about my username in the first place? Am I not a good faith contributor who has been improving articles? Why would you block me just because my username isn't memorable to you? Does it matter that I have a username in a different script, when I'm certainly not hurting anything, and I am quite clearly acting in good faith to improve articles? We should not be alienating a massive amount of people who might just want to help to write the encyclopedia just because we have usernames that you can't remember? I can understand politely asking for transliterations if the user is actively participating on talk and project pages, but blocking good contributors for the sole reason of them having a signature that is in a different script is an incredibly bad idea. --المستهلك 19:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Minor inconvenience is not a valid reason to block a good-faith contributor. —David Levy 19:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And is it more than a major inconvenience for this user to provide a transliteration? There was no discussion of a block; there was a discussion of a block only after the user didn't change the signature. The idea here is we politely say, via the template, "change your signature." Give the user a few days. Only then, after the user doesn't change the signature, is there a block. Just like we've done for User talk:Breast Cancer Fund (name of an organization). There seems to be some consensus on this. Part Deux 21:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that while a polite request is fine, I don't view this as a big enough deal to warrant a block. Frankly, I'd prefer that we start blocking the users who refuse to change their ridiculous, HTML-filled, multicolored signatures. In my assessment, these are far worse than ordinary signatures in non-Latin scripts. To allow people to get away with deliberately creating problematic, non-standard signatures while blocking users for using standard signatures would be absurd, and I don't know where you're seeing this "consensus." —David Levy 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I'm tired of the attitude of some commenters here that the concerns of English speaking wikipedians are not valid or worth considering. The inconvenience is not minor according to a lot of views expressed on this page. It *does* matter to a lot of people that usernames are not readable, as that doesn't promote collaboration and indeed can promote confusion. Additionally, blocking would only occur after polite requests were ignored. This isn't a proposal to immediately block anyone. Good faith goes both ways. If you want to be an active contributor here, you should respect the culture of this wiki. This proposal doesn't *bite* anyone, it invites dialogue and polite requests first and blocking is only a last resort. There is no other mechanism of enforcement for *any* policy on Wikipedia, so that's what we have to use. If you'd like to suggest an alternative way to enforce policy, I'd be interested to hear it. (This is the exact same thing that is done in other cases. If a user choose "David Leevy" as a username in good faith and edited with it in good faith, but it caused confusion they would politely be asked to change it. Blocking would be the last resort after multiple attempts to communicate, but it is the only way to enforce the policy ultimately should the user refuse to change. There is no discrimination involved here, nor is a confusing username a minor inconvenience whatever language it happens to be in.) pschemp | talk 21:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I suggest that you abandon this straw man about the concerns of English-speaking Wikipedians being ignored. They're being disagreed with. I wouldn't accuse you of failing to consider my opinion simply because you disagree with me. And for the record, I'm an English-speaking Wikipedian (and I don't speak any other languages).

Secondly, I needn't "suggest an alternative way to enforce policy," because I oppose adopting this as policy. I've yet to see anyone establish that the issue amounts to anything other than minor inconvenience (and simply saying so proves nothing), let alone something that would justify a block. If you can demonstrate that non-Latin usernames create a problem comparable to a situation in which one user is mistaken for another, I'll gladly reconsider my position. —David Levy 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A block is a technical measure that prevents the username from continuing to be used without transliteration. Non-Latin usernames substantially do create the problem of confusing between two users; they are symbols unidentifiable to the vast majority of editors on the English Wikipedia. There is a small set of non-Latin usernames that would not cause confusion—though there remain the other non-Latin problems—but most of them are no more distinguishable than David Levi or Visviwa. We could technically allow any similar username, but there would be confusion between them and it would be necessary to refer to them only by using copy-paste. This defeats the entire purpose of usernames. Usernames that consist entirely of numbers and alphanumeric gibberish would be more conducive to identifying and typing than would non-Latin usernames, but numerical and gibberish usernames are disallowed, and do result in blocking. —Centrx→talk • 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see my combined reply below. —David Levy 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you insist on examples, 振り仮名 and 送り仮名 look very similar to English speaking people and they would be confused. Trying to tell the two apart is confusing for people who don't read these symbols, it nearly requires a magnifiying glass. The same with any non-latin script when things are just one character off. In Arabic script, ې and ۑ and also ڲ and ڳ are different letters, but when strung together in a name it is extrememly hard to tell them apart. Users with only this different would be mistaken for one another. Now I expect David that you will say, that personally, you will sit down and learn all the teeny tiny little differences in all the non-latin scripts, but expecting the majority of people here to do that is absurd. The difference in that first pair is a miniscule difference in how thick the part on the bottom is, not something people can reasonably be expected to notice. If these were the only difference in a name it *would* cause confusion between the two for people who don't read that script. Providing a transliteration is only a minor convenience for people who want to be part of this community. Using a name that can't be read nor distinguished from other similar ones is a major inconvenience for the rest of the community. As for the blocking, I meant suggest a different way to enforce "any" policy. pschemp | talk 22:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, "振り仮名" and "送り仮名" are no more similar than "Barry" and "Larry" are.

Secondly, no, I'm not going to learn non-Latin scripts. I just don't see what the big deal is, because...

Thirdly (in reply to both Centrx and Pschemp), the claim that someone would confuse two non-Latin usernames because of an inability to recognize the characters doesn't make sense to me. If someone sees a username in an unfamiliar script, why on Earth would he/she assume (without checking) that it belonged to a particular user who happened to have a similar-looking username? I don't even do this with usernames written in the Latin script! (There are some that are unavoidably similar in one respect or another.)

Fourthly (in reply strictly to Pschemp again), asking me to "suggest a different way to enforce any policy" is irrelevant, as I don't believe that this should be policy.

Incidentally, Pschemp, your apparent unwillingness to finish formulating your thoughts before posting your messages results in inconvenience for others (in the form of continual edit conflicts). Nonetheless, I won't propose that you be blocked. —David Levy 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, such rancor. I believe you are dead wrong about this though. English speakers will be confused when looking at similar names. In some cases, they won't even realize that they are different, so why would they check? You seem to be the only person around here that thinks that non-latin scripts will be perfectly readable and never confused by people who aren't literate in them though. I think that fact is quite telling in itself. pschemp | talk 23:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I never claimed that these usernames are "perfectly readable" by people unfamiliar with the scripts in which they're written. I plainly stated that they result in a level of inconvenience that I consider minor. You're entitled to disagree, but please stop putting words in my mouth.

2. I'm baffled as to why someone would assume that a series of unidentifiable characters must belong to the same person as another series of unidentifiable characters. —David Levy 23:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, if non-Latin characters are freely acceptable with no limitations, that eliminates most of the reason for having a username policy at all. There is no reason why anyone should be prohibited from having "dfajlstwrtoppmaf" as a username if an equally unrecognizable name is allowed with a different lettering system—and there will even be usernames that are gibberish in the non-Latin language. There is no reason why "Fuck Allah" should be prohibited if someone can create an equally hateful username in non-Latin characters that creates an environment just as hostile for all the people being accommodated with non-Latin characters. A solution to the first issue is to require transliterations or alternate accounts; a solution to the second issue is to require that non-Latin usernames have equivalent, non-banned usernames on a Wikimedia Project of that language. —Centrx→talk • 02:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

1. While "Dfajlstwrtoppmaf" might seem no less useful to you than a username in a non-Latin script, the obvious distinction is that there's no valid reason for someone to select the former. Thus, we're able to greatly reduce the number of usernames that inconvenience editors here.

2. As I commented previously, there is no requirement that a user edit a Wikimedia project in his/her native language before registering an account (SUL in the near future) at Wikimedia projects in other languages (nor should there be).

We already have a solution to the problem of usernames with deliberate offensive meanings in other languages; when someone raises the issue, the account is blocked. I see no reason to deviate from this process even if such a username is accepted at another Wikimedia project (which may be lax in enforcing these standards).

If someone's non-Latin username makes no sense does not contain reasonably coherent syntactical structure in any language, that should be disallowed too. —David Levy 03:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Someone wants to have a username of his choosing, regardless of whatever opinions about gibberish Wikipedia editors have. The only reason to choose "Dfajlstwrtoppmaf" is "Derek's fajita list with regard to opposing malefactors" was already taken. I don't see why Wikipedia should force someone to be creative. After all, the person's real name (say, David Levi) is disallowed, as is his birthday (e.g. User:1979-04-29). "∀me∈ℜ(me = ♦)" is also a nice sort of username.

2. And there's no reason why we should accept unusable usernames. The person is quite able to register an account on the English Wikipedia without editing in his native language.

3. How do we verify that the username is in fact inflammatory? Is there going to be a corps of foreign language speakers that responds to all these queries. How many people on the English Wikipedia speak Urdu and is this how they want to spend their time? How many people on the Urdu Wikipedia speak English? Can a vandal not waste everyone's time by creating non-Latin usernames and then complaining about them?

4. My username that does not "make sense in any language" does make sense to me, and there is no reason why any supposedly 'nonsensical' username should be disallowed on Wikipedia if non-Latin usernames are allowed.

What is the purpose of usernames? What is the purpose of the username policy? —Centrx→talk • 05:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

1. One way or another, we're going to have arbitrary restrictions. You and I disagree on what some of those should be, and that's fine. There's no need to hyperbolically equate my opinion that "we should have x rule but not y rule" with an argument that "we should have no rules at all."

2. I deliberately noted that there is no requirement that a user edit a Wikimedia project in his/her native language before registering an account at Wikimedia projects in other languages. That doesn't mean that he/she won't want to do so after, and such an individual is likely to prefer a username (again keeping the upcoming SUL in mind) in his/her native language/character set.

3. We'll learn of the usernames' inflammatory nature when someone complains. If no one notices, it's hardly a pressing issue. Besides, how is it any better (or easier to identify) when someone registers an inflammatory non-English word or phrase as a Latin transliteration?

It's reasonable to assume that the number of Urdu-speaking users at the English Wikipedia is roughly proportional to the number of users registering Urdu usernames.

Your "vandal" argument is a bit of a stretch (and again applies to non-English usernames rendered in the Latin script).

4. My wording was a bit off (even after I changed it once), but you knew what I meant. I've changed it again, but you might well be able to poke holes in the new wording as well. (But you still know what I mean.)

As I noted above, the obvious distinction between "Dfajlstwrtoppmaf" and "편집자" is that there's no valid reason (based upon the standards laid out by Wikimedia projects) for someone to select the former. Thus, we're able to greatly reduce the number of usernames that inconvenience editors here. —David Levy 06:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that I am oh so glad that this philosophy currently sandboxed to en.wikipedia and has not infected none of the other Wikimedia or Wikipedia projects. It will also be a moot issue anyway when the single user sign-on becomes standard, but that is yet another can of worms.

BTW, just to note, en.wikibooks not only permits non-latin characters in a user name, we even went so far as approving one user with only non-latin characters in their user account name to become administrator. What this whole discussion has to do with trying to catch vandals or spot people causing mischief is beyond me. This whole thing is making en.wikipedia the laughing stock of the rest of the Wikimedia projects, particularly on this one issue. If you havn't taken a breather for awhile, en.wikipedia only represents 18.5% of all Wikimedia "articles" (and that number is falling... see meta:Table of Wikimedia Projects by Size for details). All I can say here is mainly to relax and assume good faith, as if I need to remind anybody here about that concept. --Robert Horning 01:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how people could relax and assume good faith if they find themselves on an apparently pestilential laughing stock. If they want to have useless usernames, I suppose they can waste their time with that. —Centrx→talk • 02:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Robert, you seem to be laboring under some false assumptions. For instance, you haven't seemed to grasp that the policy has alredy changed to allow non-latin usernames, period. Second, that nothing we do should be hindering communication. pschemp | talk 02:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

New Idea

Ok, I've been convinced in extensive conversations with Kim Bruning and others of the wisdom of taking baby steps here. So far, everyone agrees that including a transliteration is the polite thing to do. Certainly, were I to take up editing ja.wiki actively, it is the first thing I would do. Also, thanks to User:المستهلك who has voluntarily done this. (He totally replaced his Arabic name, I don't think anyone would object to a side by side use, like "المستهلك Al-mustahlika" which is what I was envisioning.) Though I don't agree that making this a requirement is tantamount to a block threat, some people do think this, so instead, I've concluded that we should change the wording to make the suggestion stonger, but not to a level of absolute requirement at this time. I'd still suggest preparing a {{transliteration}} to make polite requests for them, especially since few new users bother with reading every single nuance of our policies. Then, it was suggested to me, if a majority of users with these names decide not to comply, stronger wording can be looked into. To that end, I've changed the policy to read:

Some editors on this Wikipedia will be unable to read a name written in Cyrillic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or other scripts, and for some editors names in these scripts may be displayed only as question marks ("??? ??"), squares ("□□□ □□"), replacement characters ("??? ??") or mojibake ("Ã!%ôs*"). If your name is written in a non-Latin script, you are strongly urged to provide a transliteration in your signature (which you can set in your preferences) either instead of or side by side your username, and a link to your userpage (and preferably your talk page) in your signature to allow other editors to contact you easily and to facilitate communication.

Cheers. pschemp | talk 03:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, editing with a non-Latin username just doesn't rise to the level of blockable offence, or even one where the threat of blocking is appropriate, and I'm glad to see the threats removed from the new text. Non-Latin usernames do not harm the encyclopedia. We should be encouraging users to make productive edits, and threatening a new user with a block over a username instead of substantive problems in editing is a great big example of biting the newcomers. So thank you for moderating your stance on this, and I urge you to not to be tempted back into stronger wording, even if it seems like the rate of adoption is low. Suggestion: provide a link to Special:Preferences directly from the text? —CComMack (t–c) 13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't get that this isn't any more biting that blocking User:ComMack for having a confusing username, which would occur even if he was a "newcomer" editing in "good faith". There is nothing inherently discriminatory about that block either. I still strongly believe that providing a transliteration is the polite thing to do, and that if people willfully ignore this, they should be required too do it, however I think they should be given a chance to comply voluntarily first, which is what this is. We have other policies to enforce polite behaviour around here, like WP:CIVIL, and this is no different. pschemp | talk 18:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it sometimes is necessary to block accounts created in good faith as a means of policy enforcement. I disagree that this issue is important enough to warrant such policy. —David Levy 18:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, as is the template you plan on creating. Transliterations are indeed helpful, but blocking good users is not, so rewording the section to more strongly ask users to provide a transliteration is certainly better than making it a requirement (and better than having a weak wording, in my opinion). I'm happy to see that we were able to come to a compromise that works for both sides through discussion. --Rory096 16:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination

Please read what discrimination has to say about discrimination because of the use of languages. This proposal is discriminatory pure and simple. GerardM 07:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is. As I said, should I start editing ja.wiki, I would include a ja translation first thing. I'm not asking people to do anything that I wouldn't myself expect to do. "Discrimination" works both ways, and English is being discrimnated against here too. It is the same thing to force English speakers to have to deal with names that are unreadable. It is not the fault of the English wikipedia that English is used around the world and thus attracts more international editors than say, the Icelandic wiki. Those wikis don't have the issues we do because few editors use unreadable scripts there. In fact, I'd be surprised if it has any registered Arabic script usernames on the Icelandic wiki. IF this was a wiki that functioned in all languages for everything, I'd buy the discrimination argument. However, it isn't. We only allow articles in English here too. Possibly you should object to that policy and call it discrimination also. pschemp | talk 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed — this can't be called discrimination. And, as I've said elsewhere, I'd feel that I was being very discourteous if I refused to adopt a Japanese or Arabic user name when editing on those Wikipedias; these proposals should applied to all Wikipedias, mutatis mutandis. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I can't read that last statement! That is discriminatory against people who don't speak Latin! HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with GerardM here. I know that a solution is needed because many people can only read Latin script, but blocking people because their username is in a non-Latin script is discriminatory. Surprisingly (or not) this requirement is only asked on the English Wikipedia, not on the German, French, or any other European languages Wikipedia. Do not ask me why... But there are no more people able to read non-Latin scripts in these Wikipedias than here. So blocking people is certainly not the only solution. Yann 19:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with non-latin characters, but if that is discrimination then our whole username policy is discrimination. By the literal definition it is discrimination, but the question is "Is this unethical discrimination", I don't think so. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason is that English is a more universally used and taught language in international commerce than say, Danish. So of course they don't have the issues. They don't have nearly the number of people with different script name wanting to edit, so the confusion factor is low. Technically, the fact that we require articles to be in English is discrimination, but HIBC has it right. It isn't unethical discrimination to force people to write articles here in English, nor is it to ask them to include a transliteration in their signitures, because this Wiki isn't written in all languages. If it was, that would be different. pschemp | talk 19:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Latin character server suggestion

I have a suggestion that would involve a fair, but not overwhelming, bit of work to the server software that would end the Latin debate once and for all - to the satisfaction of those who insist on Latin, and to those who insist on being User:Οτιδήποτεθελουν.

Why don't we just have two potential usernames per user record in the database - one allowing Unicode and one limited to a very strict subset of ASCII - and each user would have a mandatory ASCII username and an optional Unicode username, both of which refer to the same user object. Then the system could automatically cater to both groups. When I suggest a strict subset of ASCII, I mean to include letters, numbers, and a space, because I believe EVERYONE can type these characters in order to be using the Internet... but no symbols (example, in UK there is no $ on their standard keyboard). If any symbols, then only symbols that are allowable in DNS domain names such as "-". Reswobslc 20:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes there is, it's shift-4 (£ is shift-3, and # is on the same key as ~). --ais523 10:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Example message someone would see

Of course, this would only be shown to a user whose name included non-alphanumeric characters. Users who already fit this description would go on just like normal with their single Latin username. Unless other symbols were considered valid in alphanumeric usernames as well, a user who had a comma or dollar sign in their name would have to pick another (additional) name that didn't have the comma.

Welcome back to Wikipedia. You need to choose a new username. Wikipedia now requires that you choose an additional alphanumeric username that consists only of numbers, spaces, and the 26 letters of the alphabet used in English. Both uppercase and lowercase are allowed on this additional username, but no accents or other similar marks. This is necessary because Wikipedia is an international project that must include all contributors regardless of their language, and some users cannot read, understand, or type many non-alphanumeric or accented characters. You aren't required to give up your current username, as each user is now entitled to two renditions of their username, only one of which must meet this restriction. Your new alphanumeric username will be displayed to users who cannot read or type the characters that are part of your existing name. Your existing name will continue to be shown to those who can. We recommend that your new alphanumeric username be similar to your existing one, as most members of the community will see only one or the other. Please choose a new alphanumeric username now before you may contine to edit. (input box here)Reswobslc 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

For new users:

The username you have chosen is available. Please select a secondary version of your username that contains only letters, numbers, and spaces, which you may use in addition to the username you just selected. The secondary username cannot contain punctuation, as many punctuation symbols used in English are not available on international keyboards. The secondary username is for the benefit of users who speak different languages and who may not be able to read or type the non-alphanumeric characters in your primary username, and should imitate your primary username, as most members of the community will only see one or the other.

Why this is different than having two accounts now

I am proposing that the software literally be modified to consider the two to be one and the same. That would mean two username fields in each user record of the database. Blocking the user under one name would block the user under both names, since there's only one user record. In Special pages, edit histories, and anywhere else, the web site would automatically render the version selected by the user in Preferences, or perhaps after making an automated educated guess based on the browser version and capabilities reported over the connection.

For the sake of compatibility with existing bots, extensions, and such, all User_talk pages would still physically be at the Unicode-name URL, and a User_talk page referenced by an alphanumeric username would either have to be made into a redirect to the Unicode, or MediaWiki could automatically render a small blurb with a redirect link to the Unicode username, just like it does when visiting User_talk of an IP address, to remind you that you're at a talk page that could be shared by many people.

What edit summaries would look like

Assuming User:Yamaguchi先生 selected an alphanumeric username of "Yamaguchi Sensei":

For someone who in their Preferences had the Unicode setting:

• (cur) (last)     00:25, 25 January 2007 Yamaguchi先生 (talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 58.102.101.87 to last version by OrphanBot)

For someone who in their Preferences had the Alphanumeric setting:

• (cur) (last)     00:25, 25 January 2007 Yamaguchi Sensei (talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 58.102.101.87 to last version by OrphanBot)

The preferences could even allow a mixture of the two for browsers that support Unicode but don't have Asian character sets loaded, or right-to-left text support (both are missing by default on English Windows XP unless explicitly turned on), showing Unicode most of the time, but substituting alphanumeric just on the instances of names that included Asian or right-to-left.

This would require a change to the software, but after done, I can't imagine who would be disappointed by the results. Reswobslc 22:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Others' comments

There is no point at all in your proposal unless the policy requires latin transliterations. I'd say, decide on the policy changes first, then look and see if there is an easier way to enforce it. Aditionally your proposal is too drastic, users can have accents and other diacritics in their usernames (in combination with latin script), and have always been allowed to do so: it was only other scripts that were disallowed. I think this proposal will confuse more people than it helps, even the explanation of it is confusing, especially considering that these people will be for the most part non-native speakers. pschemp | talk 22:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The proposal is technical only and doesn't exclude the possibility of requiring transliterations. Appropriate transliterations are just more subjective and inappropriate ones must be denied on a case-by-case basis, just like offensive usernames. The proposal wouldn't deny someone their accents and diacritics. It would just mean User:Frédéric would also be User:Frederic as far as the system's concerned, for those of us who don't have é on our keyboards and wish to type his name into a search/block/talk/URL box. URL's as a consequence would be cleaner, because he'd be reachable at /wiki/User:Frederic and not just at /wiki/User:Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric. Reswobslc 23:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If the transliteration policy is instituted, then this looks to me like a good way to go — especially if it can be made to include all Wikipedias, so that if I wanted to edit the Japanese Wikipedia, for example, I'd need to choose a second User-name in Japanese characters. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'd need one in Greek. :) --Ρεζ-Ουαμπ-εσ-ελ-σι Reswobslc 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What happens when someone references a user by name? For example, if I see someone as 果実栽培者 and refer to him/her by that name, how will people who see the same user as Fruit farmer know who I'm referring to? —David Levy 00:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Because you took the time to make 果実栽培者 a wiki-link to their user page, I can click it and find out. The template {{user}} is commonly used too, and this template could selectively render as necessary, and also add the transliteration as a mouse-over. It won't get any worse, as today if someone sees 5 boxes, it's as good as it's going to get. Reswobslc 00:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What if I don't make 果実栽培者 a link? (People often don't.) If the transliteration/translation is confined to the signature, everyone will recognize that name. And if someone references the actual username instead (which could be discouraged), anyone using a non-broken browser would still be able to see it. —David Levy 00:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The hypothetical situation isn't consistent with common sense. On the English Wikipedia, someone who insists on a username of 果実栽培者 is probably going to get referred to exclusively by their English username, and a person who insisted on referring to 果実栽培者 in Chinese on the English Wikipedia without making it a link is going to be seen as just as obstinate as someone who έγραφε τα δικά του λόγια στη ξένη του γλώσσα on purpose without giving a translation and knowing nobody can read it, if that makes sense. Reswobslc 00:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, "果実栽培者" is Japanese (and I don't know why you would characterize someone who uses this as his/her SUL as "insisting" on it).

Secondly, your proposal calls for users to be choose between seeing the original username or the Latin username, right? Everyone would see the user as either "果実栽培者" or "Fruit Farmer" (but not both), correct? Why/how would this individual end up being "referred to exclusively by their English username"?

Thirdly, I don't understand your point about linking. Do you always use a link when referring to other users? —David Levy 01:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

First, my mistake. Besides recognizing most kana and few grade-1 kanji, the only Japanese I really know how to say is, nihon go wakarimasen.

Second, I think it's safe to say the vast majority of people editing the English Wikipedia would choose to see a Latin transliteration of a Japanese username. To a person uninterested in Asian languages, all Japanese and Chinese characters look exactly the same. They look like random lines. They'd select the hypothetical option of "show me Latin instead of Asian characters".

Third, it is very common practice to refer to users on Wikipedia as [[User:username]]. Someone who elected to refer to a Japanese name in an English Wikipedia talk page would certainly have the wherewithal to understand that unless they used the English name seen by most everyone else, or provided a link to it, that they'd be failing to communicate and they might as well be writing in Klingon. Reswobslc 01:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's very common to link usernames. It's also common not to (especially when the user in question has edited the discussion). Why do you expect everyone to understand and remember that some users see can't see something in plain sight?

If "the vast majority of people editing the English Wikipedia would choose to see a Latin transliteration," you might as well make it mandatory or display both usernames side-by-side. It would leave far less room for confusion. —David Levy 02:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think the points we've covered are no-brainers to most people. It is just common sense that on the English Wikipedia, you have to write in English and not Japanese for people to understand you. The notion that people will be including Japanese characters in posts meant for English readers and expect them to understand them is nonsense to me and most others. (Anyone who disagrees, say something). If you want me to reply any further, post to my talk page. Reswobslc 02:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to keep the discussion right here. If you choose to ignore me, oh well.

You seem to be confusing comprehension with recognition. I can't read any Japanese text (and obtained "果実栽培者" as a computerized translation of "fruit farmer"), but I can recognize the characters when I see them repeated from above. There's one heck of a distinction between authoring messages in a foreign language and signing one's username (or mentioning someone else's) in a foreign language.

I don't know why you didn't address my second point. —David Levy 02:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of nutshell

I agree with it, the last thing we want is to oversimplify this policy that is so complex it has a rather active page dedicated to interpreting it(WP:RFCN). Nutshells are handy in some areas, but not here(in my opinion). HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, more than most guidelines and policies, this page is relatively eclectic, with different issues about usernames in general. Anyway, a full, accurate summary should be made in the introduction, not a one-line summary in a floating template. —Centrx→talk • 18:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Had I noticed that nutshell tag's addition, I would have removed it. —David Levy 18:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion

I think everyone would be better served if we divorce the signature issue from the username issue. I suggest that the last sentence of the paragraph on Non-Latin usernames be changed to read, "'Note:' If you select a non-Latin name your default signature will be in violation of Wikipedia:Signature, please consider updating your preferences immediately." Additionally Wikipedia:Signature should be updated to say that signatures need to consist of at least one word made up of plain Latin alphanumeric characters for ease of reference as most contributors are using English keyboards. This way we will have all non-Latin accounts which are using signatures required to provide what is being asked of them, non-Latin name which never use a signature will not be in violation of policy, and no one can suggest en.WP is discriminatory because the same policy applies to everyone equally. --BirgitteSB 15:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, the argument seems to be that its unfair to block people to enforce this. And since blocking is the only way we can enforce any policy ultimately, David and those above in the transliteration discussion will no doubt oppose this because "good faith contributors will be blocked." Technically, those without latin characters are already in violation of WP:SIG, the way that policy reads right now. That whole transliteration discussion *is* about signatures, so your suggestion is not fundamentally different, except it points to a different policy. How will that be enforced? pschemp | talk 17:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be enforced as other WP:SIG issues are. Generally this is done by politely asking people to comply with the policy linking to the appropriate sections so they may see for themselves. Could enforcement hypotheticaly involve a block? Yes, but I doubt someone refusing to cooperate so far as to as to recieve a block will be only in violation of WP:SIG by that point. The main advantage of this suggestion is it would leave people alone until they actually start participating in areas needing signatures, which is one of the concerns raised above.--BirgitteSB 18:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly what I tried to explain above as that's how non-vandal usernames are dealt with too. And the other proposal leaves people alone too, until they start contributing actively. Yet it was still protested as a requirement in signatures. How is this proposal actually different in practice? pschemp | talk 21:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the best practices of either proposal would be very different. I think when put into use the other proposal is less likely to achieve best practices than this one. And I think this one has a better chance of demonstrating consensus than the other. I could be wrong. The fact that this has not solicted any posistive responses means I am likely wrong, but the above was my thinking.--BirgitteSB 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my response is positive. I agree this is a better route to go because the SIG policy is already in place and will not require a policy change. You haven't actually recieved any negative responses, which is find curious because this gives, in practice, the same results as the other proposal. So let me make it clear, I'm in favor of this. pschemp | talk 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions

a) Does this proble apply in reverse - ie someone whose Wikipersona is based around a Latin-script name who then goes into a non-Latin script Wikipeda?

As it is possible to have links using "variants of a word" (eg text as is requires a plural when link is singular or eg the (London)Derry divide) could something similar be developed for names and signatures (ie on shifting between Wikis with different scripts the name/signature is automatically transliterated)?

b) I assume that most people will get the sense of the text reference to "Names of well-known living or recently deceased people... unless you are that living person." as not requiring ghosts, vampires and suchlike constructs (indulging in a touch of pendantry). Jackiespeel 18:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer to a - It doesn't right now, but I think it should. It would be terribly cool if when you went to another wiki, your sig was automatically converted. That's a difficult thing to code though. And b - ghosts vampires and such are not "real" things, so no that doesn't apply. pschemp | talk 18:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This does not apply in reverse, although it is possible some other wiki's have a policy that is effectively the reverse of this. All wikis develop their own policies independantly of one another. Although of course there is some influence where people overlap. Some wiki's don't even have a username policy, I would imagine a greater number even do not have a signature policy. Although if people do believe this is a good idea I would encourage them to practice it in reverse as simply a best practice even if it is not required.--BirgitteSB 18:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

While I have no proof of this, I imagine other language wikis have no problem with Latin-script signatures/usernames, for the simple reason that English is such a dominant language. The vast majority of people on this planet have had at least a small amount of English instruction, even if it's just learning to recognize the alphabet, so those people CAN recognize Latin-script signatures/usernames, whereas the vast majority of English-speakers will not recognize those in Chinese/Arabic/pick-your-script. Even those who haven't received any instruction in English, per se, will still recognize the Latin alphabet. That said, if I edit the Chinese Wikipedia, I would not object to being required to use a Chinese signature (which I would probably do, anyway).

And, just to add my two cents, I think requiring a simple ASCII (or at least partly ASCII, half-and-half would also be acceptable) signature on the English-language Wikipedia is not discriminatory, it is just good sense for the reasons (mostly stated above) that:

1. Many (probably most, or almost all) editors on this Wikipedia will not be able to display non-ASCII or non-Latin characters, and

2. Whether or not they can display them, they won't be able to type them, or be able to refer to them in any meaningful way in discussions like this one. --Aervanath 15:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Update MediaWiki:Welcomecreation

Why not just update this page (it's the first page newly registered users see) with translations of this line:

If your username contains non-English characters, we request that you include a transliteration (a representation using English characters) of them in your signature. Please change this now in your preferences.

Then get translations in zh, ja, ko, ar, fa, etc etc.

--pfctdayelise (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Account deletion vs blocking

Hi.

Even if one cannot delete their user account due to the possibility of authorship claiming, could one request an indefinite block on it that would keep the account but ensure it is useless? 74.38.35.171 07:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be much easier to just not use it, but you can also claim your right to vanish. Titoxd^(?!?) 14:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright?

Hi.

I saw this:

"Accounts with contributions cannot be deleted since this would allow another user to create the account, and claim authorship of those edits. It is not possible for your edits to be removed entirely. They can only be reassigned to something else so as not to violate the GNU Free Documentation License. "

How would removing them completely be a breach of the license? 74.38.35.171 07:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Because on the vast majority of the cases, edits pile on top of one another, and the text added by one user cannot be completely extracted without screwing an article up completely. The text you add, for example, would need to be extracted from every single subsequent revision after yours, which requires a) tampering with the database, and b) tampering with the edits of other users. So, AFAIK, that is why it is not done. Besides, it's not as if we actually "deleted" edits as such; we just shove them into a dark and inconspicuous place where they get stored, to not leave any revisions hanging. Titoxd^(?!?) 14:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Kim's change

Hi, since we don't agree, we really should use the talk page. My problem with the addition is that technically, according to WP:SIG, a tranliteration *is* required. But, the word required is not used here, and I feel strongly urge is obvious that it is a strong urge. If this policy meant required, it would say required. The addition is redundant and unnecessary. Though we might want to deal with the fact that the two policies conflict too. pschemp | talk 23:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think requiring it is a major problem, can we change it on both as quickly as possible? It is unacceptable to the larger wikimedia community, and I have already stated in public that it has been fixed.

Someone was complaining about the old policy on slashdot even, so I checked back to ensure that this guideline now states what it was supposed to state. --Kim Bruning 23:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, except the right now, the words are "strongly urged", not "required", on WP:U. The sig policy has been in place since last June. It doesn't use the word required either though, but could be interpreted that way. pschemp | talk 23:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

1. As currently worded, the advice can be interpreted as tantamount to a guideline (not strictly enforced in 100% of cases, but you'd better have a good reason for not abiding by it).

2. Please keep in mind that the text in question applies to people with varying levels of English comprehension. There's no harm in spelling this out as clearly and unambiguously as possible. —David Levy 23:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the disagreement has anything to do with this point or not. However WP:SIG requires the use to ASCII characters not necessarily a tranlisteration of the username. MAny people seem to use signatures with no relation to their actual username on this wiki, in my experience.--BirgitteSB 00:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Compromise is possible, but requiring ASCII might go a tad too far. --Kim Bruning 22:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the text at the signatures guideline page entirely again, because no one replied to me there. I really want to stress that this is not a requirement, since I suspect we might have had something like 10-20 fubars based on this rule already (not to mention the one case where the ja.wikipedia admin actually complained ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 12:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am all for being less retrictive. But I really think it is better to simply point people to WP:SIG and whatever consensus shows there instead outlining signature issues in this policy. Many people who edit as IP currently and will be affected by SUL in the future will never contribute where a signature is needed. Those I have looked into before mainly edit pictures and interwiki links. That these people can continue to contribute without being hassled once SUL is implemented in my primary concern. Whatever is decided about signatures is less of a concern to me, but I personally do not see the need to be very restrictive. Lately since this issue was brought up recently, I have been noticing no small number of editors here actually use non-ASCII signatures, so I don't even know what en.WP consensus is on this issue. Whatever en.WP consensus turns out to be, I do not see it a hardship for those editors who will be active enough to contribute to talk pages to conform to it. If all English en.WP editors are asked to change their non-conforming signatures, I see no reason to except non-English editors. --BirgitteSB 14:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The one issue I see is where the default signature issued de-facto by the software might be seen as non-conforming. That would be ...strange.

I guess the solution to that is to either change the signature issued by software (possibly AI-hard?), or always accept the default signature as being valid.

--Kim Bruning 16:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Countries et al

1. First question: Suppose we had editors called User:Malvinas, User:Falklands, User:Somaliland, User:TRNC, User:Abkhazia, (see list of unrecognized countries, but not only, virtually every country, or territory, or province, or area that has whatever disputes).

Does that fall within...

...WP:U#Choosing a username paragraph 2 where it says:

• any other names that may be seen as potentially offensive, or endorsing or opposing the politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure.

...and within WP:U#Inappropriate_usernames:

• Names that refer to symbols of hatred, including historical figures or events that are widely associated with such

• Names that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view.

Given the above, is it forbidden to use such usernames? If yes, should we make it explicit?

2. Second question: Now suppose these editors constantly make POV edits regarding these areas. Or further suppose that their userpages are designed to create confusion with the respective main articles (i.e. Malvinas, Falklands, Somaliland, TRNC, Abkhazia etc). I've even seen some with interwikis around! Is this a prerequisite for them to be forced to rename, or do you suffice with question #1? Is it a violation of WP:USERPAGE or WP:USERNAME? Or is it the violator of a combination of the two that should be forced to rename? And when; immediately, or after polite requests to either rename or change content? If they removed that content and kept that name, is there ability to police their userpages for reinsertion? And if they reinserted it? Or if they chose to rename, and kept/reuploaded the content?

3. Third question: Suppose the country(/territory etc) named after the user has no apparent disputes. E.g. User:Switzerland or User:French Republic. Do we allow for users to have exact names of countries(/territories etc)? (Also consider with/without provocative userpage content and/or editing practice per q#2 above). Do we discriminate between "problematic" countries(/territories etc); and if yes, on what grounds? Or do we prohibit all of them indiscriminately? Given that we have prohibited the usage of admin-like bot-like etc names, isn't it an omission that we haven't prohibited the usage of country-like names? Is the fact that they "imply an official role" of an admin (or a bot) more important in WP than the implication of an official role of a whole country(/territory etc)?

Bottomline: I'm initiating a discussion for expanding the restrictions of WP:U to include such names. I know there are some editors around with names describing origin (hypothetical example: User:English), but that's completely different than explicit country(/territory etc) names (hypothetical example: User:England). Your input is valuable. NikoSilver 22:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Having said all that, I propose the following additions:

In WP:U#Inappropriate usernames:

• Names of countries, territories, political entities, provinces and other areas which may or may not have disputes over international issues. The use of such names creates confusion with the synonymous Wikipedia articles, and may advertise "a cause" that may not be helpful to the project. It may also create a sense of "officiality" in the particular user's edits.

And, in WP:U#Rationale, to expand with an additional paragraph as follows:

While sharing particular points of view is not technically a violation itself, and has occasionally proven constructive in terms of reaching consensus among different views, users who use their usernames in parallel to their editing practices and possibly their userpages in order to promote those particular POV's are highly discouraged. The username may not be used as an alternative title for an article who's content does not match the user's POV.

Opinions please? NikoSilver 11:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Some editors are getting too pernickety over usernames already, and this seems to me to be an oversensitive addtion to the guidelines. The second point is dealt with already in our normal practice — why add yet more instructions? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You also endorse the existence of a User:Rodesia with a content of why it shouldn't become Zimbabwe? A User:Islas Malvinas with a thesis of why the Falklands are Argentinian? A User:Byzantine Empire describing how it should be restored? A User:Iran with why nukes should be free there? What about a User:Microsoft or User:The Coca Cola company? Or are the official positions of companies more worthy than those of states? I don't want to be a WP:CREEP here, but aren't these names asking for trouble? It's another thing to be a User:Iranian, and another to be User:Iran itself. NikoSilver 18:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The phrase other names that may be seen as potentially offensive, or endorsing or opposing the politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure covers this. It is better to have a discussion at WP:RFCN than a blanket preemptive ban on such names. If a user is pushing a POV, that is a seperate matter than the username. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since none of you seem to be aware of the past, let me tell you what has previously been done with usernames of countries. It was decided that just like using the name of famous living person if you are not that person is not allowed, we don't allow country names because there is no single person who has the authority to edit as a country. All the user names of countries that could be thought of at the time were blocked, and still are. Any new ones should be blocked also. That being said, it wasn't codified into policy because it is just common sense. Furthermore, it was decided that adjectives describing nationality were fine, as most users who use them are not causing problems. IF Niko had taken the time to check, he would see that user:Iran and many of his examples were blocked 10 months ago, and hence will never be a problem. pschemp | talk 18:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)