Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Some are a stretch

I posted the below message on the admin notice board for usernames. I know I am not an administraotr however I have been watching this board for a while and I have noticed a trend as of late that we seem to be finding more creative reasons why a username isn't a good one. For the most part I have agreed that some usernames are not appropriate but everyonce in a while someone casts a good argument for deleting one on what I would consider to be an otherwise good name. For example there is one on here now that appears to be a name but contains bich so it popped up on the radar and another that seems to mimic jack bauer. In regards to that one the editor that submitted it seems to think that people will think that the user condones the use of torture and although they might I think this one is a stretch. There are A LOT of other user names in WP that I would think would be far more offensive than that such as Thefeargod (could offend people who are religious) or Hydrogen iodide (because it could be associated with illegal drug use or production). Which is to say that I don't agree with eliminating them either but I wanted to present them as examples. Even mine could be offensive because it starts with what would appear to be a bodily fluid (but its pronounced koom). I just think that we should be wary of what we say is an inappropriate username and assume good faith or we may find ourselves on a slippery slope.--Kumioko (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(This a copy of the reply I left at the other page) Just a quick point that our bot reported the username with "bich". While the name-watcher bot generally does a very good job, it does occasionally report false positives. As for the report concerning Jauerback, well, I've left a note about that. I'm glad you've taken an interest and would point out that WT:U is also a good place to discuss the username policy.

If you have other concerns, please feel free to post them. TNXMan 11:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Rudolf Hess 46 is a very grey area. He's more than half a century out of the spotlight and dead since 22 years (what is the average wikipedian age? So he ded before everybody was born, was a pawn in his heirarchy and it is better we concern ourselves with his image than if we were guarding the name of Walter Rudolf Hess? pah!!). Hess is hardly Britney Spears, hardly Elvis Presly or Henry ford. I beleive that concerns over names that are not currently notable figures on their own or of fictional characters (Jack Bauer being a recent concern), are overly misguided. Elvis may be gone but bot forgotten. Names like Rudolf and Hess are common in places. Far too much else to worry about without chasing Jack Bauer and Rudolf Hess!! ~ R.T.G 18:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Company names clarification

So now that the policy has been amended to prohibit the explicit use of a company name, I have a question that's a slight grey area.

Let's say there is a company called SomeInternetBusiness. Per the policy, User:SomeInternetBusiness would be blocked without any questions asked. But what about the following hypothetical usernames, assuming they have edited articles pertaining to SomeInternetBusiness?

• User:SIB
• User:MikeSomeInternetBusiness
• User:MikeSIB

Also, I am wondering how the community would feel about the above if the users were also making unrelated, good-faith contributions - would this be a mitigating factor?

Thanks. Shereth 15:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the first and third are not blatant violations (and would probably need to go to the COI board). The second would be. This is not to say, of course, they couldn't be blocked for advertising/spamming. TNXMan 15:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tnxman. IMO, the first and third are fine. Without the associated editing history these names are perfectly fine. Therefore this would be a conflict of interest issue, not a username issue. Consider this question: If the user changed username, would the problem be solved? The answer in this case is no, since the conflict of interest would still be there. Therefore, we should not warn User:SIB or User:MikeSIB of a bad username and suggest they change their name (which the username warning template does), instead they should be warned of a potential conflict of interest, watched for spamming and blocked if they do so. My opinion is that a user should only be warned of a bad username if the problem lies in their username itself and changing username would resolve the concern. Questwolf (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely with the interpretation of "explicit" to mean just "the company name". In many, if not most, circumstances SIB (to use this hypothetical) is just as promotional as the full name and should be dealt with accordingly. If we let company reps circumvent the policy (intentionally or otherwise) merely by using an obvious abbreviation, what is the point of having the policy in the first place? Yes, there is still a COI issue if the name is changed, but at least we will have dealt with the name issue upfront.  – ukexpat (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with the wording as it stands, "the suggestion that the account is operated by a group, project or collective rather than one individual". "Suggestion" is just the right word, I think. I mentioned some examples of ones I blocked over at WT:UAA: User:Ulyssesreborn (created an article promoting the Ulysses Rebirth exhibit), User:Wimintern (created an article promoting World Internet Marketing Inc), and User:Intaid (created an article promoting International Aid, Inc.) As Julian says, the username is okay "if you have to squint to see it", but when you see these usernames editing those articles, squinting isn't necessary, and I don't think our reaction to seeing these at WP:UAA should be "take it elsewhere, that's COI". I appreciate the concern that UAA gets overloaded sometimes, but we are doing a good job on the db-spam queue these days, and when I do a username block, the report is automatically removed from UAA by the HelperBot. A name that appears to correspond to a group, editing an article on that group, creates an inevitable temptation for multiple people at the group to use that account, and creates unsolvable OWNership problems. - Dank (push to talk) 11:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We can use common sense when the matter is clear, and discussion and/or observation with the user when it is not clear. We will never be able to draw a bright line in the policy by pondering hypotheticals. Most policies involve some sort of judgment call and we manage to carry on. Chillum 14:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a similar situation. An admin blocked the user Cabarrusnowmagazine, who had created a userpage that was essentially an ad for the magazine. Less than an hour after their block, User:Cnm2009 was created and posted similar content about the magazine to their user page. I blocked that user via the usernames for admin attention noticeboard, and placed a suspected sockpuppet tag on their page. The second user has been unblocked with a summary to the effect that the name shouldn't have been blocked. It seems pretty obvious to me that it's the same user; given that the content is on their userpage and not in article space, should it have gone to the COI noticeboard? Or is the unblocking admin right and we should just watch the user's edits? Or...? Exploding Boy (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My personal interpretation is that "Cnm2009" does not appear to be explicitly promoting something unless "Cnm2009" is a common-use reference to the magazine. I tend to have a fairly lenient stance, however. The comments on the earlier examples lead me to believe it would probably have been safe to block but something like this is certainly not worth engagaing in a wheel war over and I'd just let it go at this point :) Shereth 22:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not planning to reblock him, but I thought it was a legitimate block to begin with, given the circumstances. Even the second username in combination with the stuff about the magazine is pretty close to the line. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a legitimate block, I think, but I don't see how it was a username block. The edits would have been just as problematic if the user would have been named "Lorem Ipsum". "Cnm2009" might have been an indication that there is indeed a WP:SPAM problem, but in the end it's still a WP:SPAM issue, not a username issue. --Conti|✉ 23:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Update?

Someone mentioned the "update" over at WT:UAA, but I don't think there is a monthly update for this page. WP:Update would apply if it were in Category:Wikipedia enforcement policy, and that seems like a reasonable fit. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good to me. On a related note, I did summarize the blatant promotion RfC for the WP:CENT archives. Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Archive#Process_issues.

(Consensus to:) Amend Twinkle to make reporting of blatant promotion to WP:AIV and subtle promotion to WP:COIN easier. Amend username policy to prohibit explicit company names. Amend username policy to avoid coverage of editing behavior, and rather concentrate on the username itself. (Relates to:) Wikipedia:Usernames, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest

Gigs (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that there was a little more recent activity outside the RfC... The information on softblocking vs hardblocking was moved from the policy into the administrative instructions.. I think that was in late May. Gigs (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Quick note: I just softblocked User:KGWD; we don't usually softblock a username based on company initials, but the userpage began "KGWD (Kevin George Web Design Co)". When either the userpage or the website suggests that the company initials are themselves an alternate name for the company, then I softblock, but if anyone disagrees, let me know. On a related subject: I decided at the end of June to stop editing any of the policy pages covered at WP:Update, but this page is an exception. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Multiple accounts and reassignation of edits

I have had a curious mishap. Seems like I've been inadvertently using two accounts with the same username, only diferring in capitalization (UKER and Uker), a problem that originated in Wikipedia letting me register two different accounts to the same email address, which I feel is an error. My point now is, I have been actively using both (two PCs, each logged in with a different user) and would like to move over to one of them, preferably the older one, but I obviously don't want to lose track of my edits. So, how do I request the edits in one of the accounts be reassigned to the other? Thanks in advance. uKER (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RENAME is the page you're looking for. - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Fixreturn

I've run across names like this a few times. The sole edit was to their user talk page, "Get high return on your online investment.", blah blah. The name is undoubtedly meant to suggest you get a fixed return on your money if you invest with them. Although I don't know their company name, we're okay with softblocking usernames that are promotional slogans, right? - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If I had a mop that is exactly what I would do. – ukexpat (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh. If they're so nonspecific in what they're promoting that we can't even tell what they're selling, I don't see what the harm of the username is. Fixreturn, for example, is not a slogan but a phrase used by a broad industry. Might as well blank the user talk page but otherwise, I'd leave it alone. Mangojuice^talk 06:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So, does WP:U recommend against usernames that require that we understand exactly what they're promoting, or recommend against promotional usernames? - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one from today: User:Commercial-loan-expert. Not that I'm right, but the question I ask myself is, is it very likely that the username is intended to be used to promote a particular business, or is there a reasonable possibility, after looking at the text and the contribs page, that the name is intended to express interest in the general type of business? I try to balance "not born yesterday" with AGF. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the person will promote a business, or maybe they will contribute valuable encyclopedic content on commercial loans. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that username, in fact, it's exactly the kind of name I would want someone like that to choose, because it describes them as a person. If you feel that name is borderline, you need to tip your balance more towards AGF. If the person does engage in inappropriate behavior, we can always block then. Unmerited blocks are not very helpful. Mangojuice^talk 13:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How about User:LookYoungerNow? Maybe they're a prize-winning gerontologist, here to contribute useful encyclopedic information. How about User:MaleEnhancement? They might be a sports physiologist. What I work on a good part of most days is trying to keep Wikipedia from looking bad. Userpages and usernames come up in Google searches; what will the typical reader think of User:Fixreturn, who seems to be offering no-risk, high-yield investments? Are they likely to assume that Wikipedia has valuable encyclopedic information on how you, too, can get rich quick with no risk? Or are they likely to assume that there's no quality control at Wikipedia? - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Look Younger Now is a sales pitch; I wouldn't have a problem with blocking that one. MaleEnhancement: like FixReturn, it's not a personal name so it's suspicious. Wait for their activities. Maybe someone would just use that as a handle, and have interests completely different from what the name implies. It doesn't hurt to wait but it can hurt a lot to block. As for inappropriate pages, keep in mind that it's just like any other vandalism / inappropriate content: blank it or delete it. Be especially wary of imposing username blocks when the real problem is other behavior. FixReturn, for instance, could easily merit a 24 hour block if they were reposting vague advertising, but since their username isn't fundamentally inappropriate, just suspicious, it's best not to give a username block. If you want to block them indefinitely, block them for the behavior, not the name. Mangojuice^talk 14:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Using spamublock would put it on a slippery slope; I'd rather leave spamublock for cases where someone has recently been adding multiple promotional pages and/or links. If User:MaleEnhancement shows up in histories, then my guess is that 100 out of 100 readers who are aware that we haven't blocked them wouldn't come to the conclusion "Wikipedians are wonderful, patient people", they would come to the conclusion "Either it's okay to use usernames to promote products on Wikipedia, or else it's not okay, but they don't have effective quality control." We can argue with each other, but we can't argue with the readers, and appearances are important. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I meant, given promotional edits by User:MaleEnhancement. I only come across these if that's the problem. But I'm not talking about spamublock ... unrelenting, worthless, nothing-but-promotional edits, I'm talking about any edits that reinforce that the username is intended as promotional. - Dank (push to talk) 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The simple answer is to assume good faith. Your examples are perfect ones in that they are not explicit violations of the policy and there are reasonable scenarios in which such user names might be used in a non-promotional manner. Unless there is evidence to the contrary (ie. unambiguous promotional edits) we must assume that the user is not here to promote a product. In the original example, User:Fixreturn, there was clear evidence of an intent to promote a "fixed return" product and they are no longer entitled to the presumption of good faith and may be safely blocked. Shereth 14:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I wouldn't have softblocked User:Fixreturn if the text and the contribs (just the one, from a year ago) hadn't removed all doubt as to whether this user was here to contribute enyclopedic content. I check the contribs before every softblock (especially since not all taggers do). - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat tangential, personally I would have dismissed the report on User:Fixreturn as stale - I find it somewhat wasteful for people to be reporting old accounts, but that's neither here nor there. I do agree it was a good block per policy. Shereth 14:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I only get to these pages if they show up in the db-g11 queue, and of course, even if it's a year old, the page is still showing up in Google searches so I want to delete the page if the page merits G11 deletion. I check the contribs whether I'm considering the softblock or not, and it's one keystroke for me to softblock-and-G11 and one keystroke to just G11. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dj mohtaro

Page began "Born in rotterdam on the 28th of februari 1986, Devid meijer started his career back in his infant-years. afther played at some privet party`s he love`s to spin his own style ``hardcore music`` Mohtaro is the project name of Devid Meijer." An obvious G11 ... how about the softblock? - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe a professional pseudonym qualifies as promotional. Shereth 15:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. Deleting the article should be sufficient, if they continue to use Wikipedia for promotion, they will be blocked for that. Although often when I see a user page like that if it's just a short bio, nothing too spammy, I just tag it with {{Userpage Blue}} so it's clear it's not an article and leave it at that. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely do not block a pseudonym as inappropriate: we should probably assume that is a person using a pseudonym... which is actually exactly what a username is supposed to be. Dank -- I think a good idea would be for you to try doing some unblock reviewing. Think from that perspective, and you'll see the difficulty a block like this could cause. Mangojuice^talk 16:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I just ask the questions, I don't make the decisions, and there is so much to do in clear-cut cases that I don't fiddle with judgment calls. We have consensus that Wikipedia is not the place to promote a business; the question is whether the username itself does that. WP:U currently says "Promotional usernames are advertisements for a company or group"; I'm fine with that, and I agree that under current policy this username shouldn't be softblocked. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Offensive Username" section should be removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This suggestion seems to have been made to make a WP:POINT not actually related to username policy Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia is not censored. 68.108.17.61 (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but we are also civil. Shereth 20:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating a page called "Oral Sex" and showing a graphic picture of two men is neither civil, or considerate. I don't see any of you doing a dang thing about that. 68.108.17.61 (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We do our best to keep the article on oral sex to be as nice and civil as possible. :) --Conti|✉ 22:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gavelclub

This discussion could use more voices. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a user page issue to me, not a user name issue. --Conti|✉ 10:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's been brought up at that afd that maybe it's time to re-write the standard username block template. This seems a more appropriate venue for such a discussion. Personally I feel strongly that the template should have a parameter that says specifically which section of the username policy has been violated, as this may not be clear to some people. I think I've actually seen something like this, but usually it's just the generic {{Uw-ublock}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to bring up a small point I also made at the mfd discussion. This user was blocked from editing while these users discuss what to do. This is very undemocratic, and users should not be blocked until a decision is made if it is an iffy case... Or in this case, more concerned with the content of the userpage than of the actual username. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Exploding Boy will probably be happy to revert his block while the MfD is going on; ask him. - Dank (push to talk) 03:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the user some time ago via the usernames for admin attention noticeboard. I wasn't aware of this discussion (I found it by following Floydian's contribs, after he left a note of protest on my talk page). I must say, I'm still not entirely clear what the discussion is about; does someone think a block isn't justified in this case? Exploding Boy (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just seen there's an MFD for the user's userpage. I'm not entirely sure why I wasn't made aware of it sooner, but I'll unblock the user so they can participate. For the record, I think the name is a fairly clear violation of the username policy, given the user's edits. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to protest, just incite fairness. It is definitely a clear violation of G11 for the userpage, but the user could keep their name if they removed the advertising from their userpage. TBH, its quite unlikely that the user has even returned to know that they are blocked. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[undent]In response to Beeblebrox, above, I see you left a note on the user's talk page saying "Since the blocking admin did not bother to explain the reason for this block, I guess I will." I did, however, leave the user a rather detailed explanation in the form of the {{usernameblock}} template, which reads (in part):

"This account . . . has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because your username does not meet our username policy . . . In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, misleading, or related to a 'real-world' group or organization. Also, usernames may not end with the string "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account."

This covers pretty much every reason a given user might be usernameblocked. While it is possible to add a parameter to the template (in the form of {{usernameblock|reason}}), like many admins I often don't bother, since I expect that most usernameblocked users will know why they've been blocked right away (most of the ones I encounter via UAA are offensive, misleading or promotional), be able to see fairly quickly why they've been blocked by reading the template message, and can get more specifics by looking at the policy itself. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Salient discussion about wording of the uw is on the MfD page = perhaps it should be copied here. Meanwhile, there was some odd claim that a user who does not even make any more posts clearly was there for just one post, even though he was blocked. As for unblocking being a cure -- it is not. Who, after being told that they can not edit again, will log in again to see if that is still true? As for wording of the template message being clear ... that is debateable. O proposed a change on the MfD page if anyone wishes to note it. Collect (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• We should be clear that Exploding Boy was acting in the way prescribed by consensus. Those of us who feel the procedure needs to change, also need to be clear that this doesn't mean Exploding Boy should be censured.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Correct. I am personally not a fan of the policy (or more strictly the enforcement thereof) but currently there is a conensus that certain types of user names are blocked on sight. Our hands are effectively tied in these circumstances and there is no reason to go after someone for merely following the rules. Shereth 16:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• The block itself was certainly appropriate according to policy, and Exploding Boy didn't do anything that many, if not most, other admins would have done, and that is exactly the problem I have with this. Asking a user with one edit to read the entire username policy to find out where they crossed the line seems like biting. New users are often overwhelmed by Wikipedia's wealth of policies and guidelines, experienced users and admins therefore have an obligation to be explicit when explaining violations of these policies to them, and to provide specific links to the relevant section of policy . New users also often make the mistake of confusing "this is promotional" with "you are being paid to do this" so they may honestly not understand what they have done wrong if they aren't PR hacks in an office, but rather members of some club who simply slightly misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• WP:UAA is extraordinarily bitey. Given that the majority of the reports there seem to be for "promotional" violations, I see no problem with the creation of a template that more directly addresses the problem. There is {{Uw-spamublock}} but it seems more geared toward blatant spammers rather than people with merely a promotional username, and it is a rather unfriendly template. There are a lot of ignorant new users who show up to write about their favorite garage band and thus use the name of said band, earning them a rapid block with little in the way of detailed explanation. Something gentler to explain the violation might actually encourage the user to become a productive editor rather than scaring them away ... Shereth 17:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

These comments are all very good descriptions of the problems, and I can't improve on them, but I want to talk a little bit about how things got this way. We didn't get to be the world's top information source because our articles always use just the right word or the very best sources or the prettiest images; we got to #1 because most people have become skeptical of their other information sources, which are full of products and opinions being pushed by individuals and companies. The appearance of being "crowdsourced" was essential to our success, and a lot of Wikipedians have understood that and reacted over the years by deleting things and discouraging contributors who smell even a little bit funky. But ... we won, and I don't think we need to be so uptight any more. I agree with the rest of you that simple explanations of what new users have done wrong and how to fix it would work best now. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I also agree, I suspect we have the start of a consensus to make some changes here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks, but, as you might expect, I disagree that the policy should be watered down or that WP:UAA should be done away with for spamnames and replaced with a wishy-washy template (if that is indeed the suggestion). Maybe I am just cynical, or maybe I have worked in corporate capitalism for too long, but if we do that, the spammers will be back in force and we will be back where we started -- we need to block spam names on sight. You only have to review the user creation log to see that spamnames are still being created, as are blatantly promotional articles and user pages. I am all for assuming good faith where appropriate but in this case we should as quickly as possible discourage contributors who are only here to spam and I don't think that is bitey in the least. – ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

One additional point, if we are going to seek consensus for a change in the policy, this is not the place to do it - it needs to be done where a lot more users will see it an be able to comment. – ukexpat (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on changing the template seems to be happening in several places, which is counterproductive, but I have a problem with some of the kind and gentle versions that have been suggested on the Gavelclub MFD page. Someone who registers the names "Killalljews," "Brad=faggot" or "AbortionClinicBombing" doesn't need to be treated with kid gloves. [ec] And I agree with Ukexpat's 2 posts above. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

An RfC can always be started to attract more attention. But before we do that, we should first agree on what we are actually trying to do here. The general idea to inform users of what part of this policy they violated seems quite sane to me. So sane, actually, that I don't see why we should not do it. --Conti|✉ 19:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

←Thanks, ukexpat and EB. In no particular order:

• I think it's clear we're not talking about changing everything. I think there's broad support for using different warnings in some situations, especially for more more specific and more helpful warnings, when appropriate of course.
• Fish don't know what water is, and it's hard to explain what we define as promotionalism to people who have grown up in a world where 95% of what you see in the media was created by people with an opinion to push or a product to sell. I don't think people who don't "get it" are evil, especially the newbies, they just need to be told what we need, without judgment. On the other hand, admins who have been active in deletion work longer than I have will all tell you that almost all of the people we're talking about here will keep trying to find a way around the system until we make it absolutely clear that there's no way around the system, by deleting their articles and blocking their promotional usernames quickly and without remorse. We can and should leave simple instructions as to how they can fix things and let them know that they're welcome to contribute.
• The talk page of the policy page is one place where discussion needs to happen, but it would probably be a good idea to bring this up at WT:CSD (even though that's not specifically for usernames) and to do an RFC when it's clear what we're proposing.
• I'm not as worried that the "spammers will be back in force". The ones I deal with rarely reappear, and I'm fairly gentle. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not suggesting that the actual policy be changed, just the way in which offending users are informed. For obvious bad faith usernames, such as the "killalljews" example made above, there is little need to explain further as creation of such an account name is a clear demonstration of intent to harm or disrupt Wikipedia. On the other hand, in cases like the one that started all this where a person has used the name of a club they belong to you as a username, it should be made clearer to them that the only reason their username is being blocked is because accounts are for individuals, not groups, and that their name could be seen as promoting said group. Obviously, if they knew this username would lead to a block, they would have picked something else to begin with. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That being the case, perhaps there should be some kind of message when a username is created explaining which types of names are unacceptable (or perhaps there already is; does anyone know?). Exploding Boy (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd love to see a change in the policy with regards to "spamnames" - I continue to believe that much of what we currently call promotional usernames are not inherently promotional without editing behavior to the contrary. That said, I get the impression that I am of a minority opinion and am not going to expend too much energy toward trying to make a change in the policy. I am absolutely in agreement with Beeblebrox however, specifically with regards to how users are handles and notified. The standard method of "block and template" as it currently goes is not very conducive to fostering new users. Our username policy is still open to debate and interpretation, and expecting someone who knows little to nothing about the "culture" here at Wikipedia to be able to read through a policy page like WP:U and understand what they did wrong is at best naive on our part - and at worst, outright negligent. Shereth 19:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you really? I think WP:U is quite easy to understand. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

On its face it is pretty simple, but again the problem is one of interpretation. The fact that there are still cases where some admins will issue a block while others would let it slide is indicative of the fact that it is not always plain that a username is a violation. I will grant you that it ought to be fairly easy to understand why a username was blocked - surely User:MyNeighborsBand is not going to believe that we blocked him for having an offensive username. The confusing part for new users (and sometimes even experienced users) is in figuring out why the username is a violation, not merely that it is. That is the part that could do with some better explanation. Shereth 19:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, you're not the only one who thinks that way about promotional usernames. :) Anyhow, using, say, three different templates ("Your username is offensive", "Your username is used for spamming", "Your username is too confusing") instead of just one ("Your username is inappropriate in some way") would seem like quite an improvement to me already. --Conti|✉ 19:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good to know I'm not alone! Shereth 19:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thence my tweakable suggestion: "This username does not meet the WP username policies. Please read WP:USERNAME and try using one which meets its requirements. Thank you, and we hope to see you editing on WP soon under a new name. If you feel blocking this name is in error, you may ask for it to be reviewed (see below)." Clearly tweaking would allow a sterner message for usernames which the user should not even have tried to get away with <g>. And note the use of "review" instead of "appeal" as much less threatening to most folk. Collect (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that goes far enough. "Please read Page XY to see why we blocked you" really shouldn't be in any kind of block message. If we block a newbie (who might as well act in good faith), we should clearly tell him what they did wrong. --Conti|✉ 20:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not -- but it definitely is easier to read than the current boilerplate <g>. (noting post below) And even if only 10% are "real new users" ought we so willingly affront them? Cost of civility is zero -- cost of losing potential editors (noting the graphs of new editors over time) is substantial. Collect (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Re this comment above: Fish don't know what water is, and it's hard to explain what we define as promotionalism to people who have grown up in a world where 95% of what you see in the media was created by people with an opinion to push or a product to sell. I don't think people who don't "get it" are evil, especially the newbies, they just need to be told what we need, without judgment. On the other hand, admins who have been active in deletion work longer than I have will all tell you that almost all of the people we're talking about here will keep trying to find a way around the system until we make it absolutely clear that there's no way around the system, by deleting their articles and blocking their promotional usernames quickly and without remorse. We can and should leave simple instructions as to how they can fix things and let them know that they're welcome to contribute.

I think the second half of this represents the vast majority of cases. I would guess that over 90% (pulled that right out of thin air) of the spamnames are created by folks who know exactly what they are doing -- company reps, PR agencies etc, whose sole intent is to promote their companies, products and clients. The rest, only a small minority, are created by Joe User as an oopsie. – ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to make a few comments relevant to this tread.
  

This big chunk of text is supposed to let you know how blocked users feel. Try to image someone with a username like "fixedrateloans" or "webuycars" or some borderline promotional name. I say again, this section is not about *my* username The comments are not negative to the admins involved this is PURELY HOW I FELT AT THE TIME, and I'm using it not to say "These editors abused admin power" but to explain how I as a new user was confused.
I'd been editing as an IP. I wasn't particularly proud of those edits, and I wanted to move on to more productive stuff. Rather than fleeing my old ID I used my IP as my username 87.113.86.207 (talk), and then I put a linky on the IP page to the logged in page. I went off, came back to find I'd been blocked indef. so, some comments
i: Don't indef block when you have a userbox saying you're busy in RL and might not be around much, and might not return soon. (Is this actually important, or am I over-emphasising this?)
ii: People don't know the lingo, they don't know the jargon, they don't know the hsitory of why some things are seen as bad. A bit more explaining, and a bit less of the huge complex template would be good.
iii: Allow users to have a method to ask questions aout username locks - the unblock template isn't it. "What about this name? what about a hatnote?"
iv:Don't have a policy that says usernames are never misleading enough in themselves to deserve an instant ban without discussion if you, and unblock reviewing admins, are happy to block instantly, permanently, without discussion.
v: I found it really wierd that people were blocking me for something that was not in policy, but were refusing to unblock me because of that, (an understandable action on their part) OR to edit the text of the policy to reflect what actually happens. "we've blocked you, and declined your unblock, because we know the name is wrong, but we're not going to change the text of the policy page to reflect this" - it felt a bit Catch22.
I SAY AGAIN - THIS IS NOT A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE ACTION OF THE INVOLVED ADMINS, it is just the experiences of someone who has gone through the block/request unblock process. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• See NihonJoe's comment in next section. Hurr87.113.86.207durr (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

IP addresses and Username policy page

Hello, at present the policy doesn't mention having an IP address as a reason for being blocked. I'm pretty sure (after my recent experience) that consensus will be that blocking usernames that are IP addresses is correct. So, I'm asking here before being bold)if it's okay for me to add a specific reference to "Don't use an IP address as a username"? (Probably in the bit about email addresses.) thanks. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

See my user page, and the discussion above for reasons this is important. I was instantly, permanently blocked, even though policy does not mention use of IPs as usernames, and even though policy specifically says that confusing usernames cannot be so confusing as to require a block before being blocked. I am not asking you to change the policy. Several admins reviewed the block and were clear that it was valid. I am asking that you make the text of the policy clear - all it needs is a small line saying "Email or IP addresses are a bad choice for usernames and will likely be blocked". 87.113.86.207 (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, this IP's username about which they are complaining for being blocked was User:87.113.86.207 (talk). Yes, the "(talk)" is part of the username, too. They were told that because the username appeared to be an IP address that is was misleading and therefore violated WP:U. This has been standard practice for a very long time now, yet they refuse to accept that their username is misleading. Instead of registering a new username as suggested (or even requesting a new username change), they are now complaining even more about it (here, at Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention, at User talk:87.113.86.207 (talk), and in two sections at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names: here and here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am complaining that the reason given for the block is not mentioned in policy. Add a very small, very simple, line to to policy saying "usernames resembling email or IP addresses are likely to be blocked". You say I'm complaining even more about it here and there - that's because the policy says, clearly that no username can be so misleading as to require a block without trying to discuss it first. No-one tried to discuss the block first. Can you not see that a discussion "Hey, your username looks weird when you do THIS, would you consider changing it?" is a lot less fierce than an instant permanant block? Finally, the username blocks should not e used for poor behaviour has nothing to do with my username block. Hurr87.113.86.207durr (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• And, obviously, IP editors cannot edit policy, and I have to wait for X days before I'm allowed to edit. So, I'm trying to gauge consensus for the change until I'm allowed to change it. Is that the wrong thing to do? Hurr87.113.86.207durr (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• NihonJoe - the second link you give is not aimed at you. I am sorry. Looking at it now I can see how some people might think it is. It is not. The comment genuinely is no more than "a bunch of people might not like a name, but that's no reason to block if it is compliant with policy". (And here policy means "what admins actually do", not just "what is written in the text") I hope that clarifies things. I'll say again, I have no complaints about the admins involved in my username blocks. Hurr87.113.86.207durr (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A tweak

I tweaked the first sentence of WP:ORGNAME (new shortcut) to: "A clear reference to a company or group name in your username will result in your username being blocked". I think I'm seeing support for a block message in many of these cases that's short and simple, something like "Welcome to Wikipedia. We have a policy against usernames that point to a particular organization. I have blocked this account; please register a new username. Thanks." I think we'll get resistance to making this one of the standard user warnings ... it's the old argument that the messages should be harsh and detailed, in order to minimize the chance that they'll be used in the wrong cases by taggers and admins who (it is assumed) don't know what they're doing, rather than crafting the message to have the optimal effect on the new users. I think deletion summaries and talk page messages should be optimized for the recipients, but I've lost a couple of rounds with that fight before. Still, I think the chances are good of getting User:Animum to either add something like this to the easyblock.js script, or giving us a spinoff script for just this purpose. Suggestions? - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)